Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Maryport Harbour Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Jarrow Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (TOLLESBURY AND WEST MERSEA) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, for the establishment and maintenance of a Several Oyster Fishery at Tollesbury and West Mersea, in the estuary of the River Black water, in the county of Essex," presented by Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND (PULP AND PAPER MILLS).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government to the proposed agreement between the Commission of Government in Newfoundland and the Bowater (Newfoundland) Pulp and Paper Mills, Limited; and whether he is aware of the strong opposition of the people of Newfoundland to its ratification?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): The agreement to which the hon. Member refers provides for the development of certain important forest areas in Newfoundland, partly for the export of wood and partly for an increase in the manufacture of sulphite wood pulp in the island. The agree-

ment was signed in November last after negotiations extending over more than a year between the Commission of Government and Messrs. Bowater Lloyds, and it has since been confirmed by local legislation. My predecessors in office were kept in close touch with the negotiations throughout and the action taken by the Commission has been approved. As regards the second part of the question, I am aware that the arrangement has been criticised in certain quarters in Newfoundland, but it has also received strong support in other quarters there, and I see no reason to doubt that it will prove to be in the best interests of the island.

Mr. Lunn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very bitter resentment by a great number of the population of Newfoundland against this agreement, that I do not think they are fully aware that the agreement has been signed, and that I would like it, in the interests of the people of Newfoundland not to be ratified, because is it not a fact that there are something like 50,000 unemployed there and that there is an amount of under-nourishment among thousands of people?

Sir T. Inskip: I hope that this agreement will lead to a substantial increase of employment in the island.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FILM INDUSTRY (DOMINIONS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the fact that an Act has been passed by the Government of New South Wales giving effect to an exhibitors' quota of British films as defined in Part III of the Cinematograph Films Act passed in the United Kingdom in 1938, he will state, if possible, what are the intentions of other Dominion Governments on this subject?

Sir T. Inskip: The recent New South Wales legislation does not itself establish an exhibitors' quota for British films, but only provides that such a quota may be put into force by proclamation. As was stated in the reply given to the hon. Member on 21st February, no information is available as to the intentions of Governments in the Dominions elsewhere to introduce any new or amending legislation on this subject.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of New South Wales to put this Act into force by proclamation?

Sir T. Inskip: I have no information on that point at present.

ANGLO-ARGENTINE MEAT TRADE.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to reduce difficulties connected with renewal of the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement and in the interests of Argentine pastoralists, Argentine transport undertakings, and British consumers, he will confer with the Argentine Government with a view to an agreed maximum of prices to consumers, and limitation of gross profits of firms controlling the Anglo-Argentine meat trade?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I presume that my hon. Friend has chiefly in mind the recommendations of the joint committee of inquiry into the Anglo-Argentine meat trade. As I have stated in reply to previous questions, the recommendations of this committee are in the main addressed to the Argentine Government. Any proposals that that Government might make would receive careful consideration.

SHIPPING AND SHIPBUILDING.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange to place in the Library of the House of Commons copies of any reports in his possession giving particulars of the financial assistance supplied by the Governments of Germany and Japan to firms of shipbuilders in their respective countries?

Mr. Stanley: I am arranging for such information as I have to be made available as soon as possible.

Mr. Johnston: In the Library?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many shipbuilding berths were vacant, and how many merchant vessels were under construction at the last available date in the Greenock area; how many of these vessels are due to be launched within the next three and six months, respectively; and how many orders are in hand to replace the vessels so launched?

Mr. Stanley: I am informed that 18 ocean-going merchant ships are at present under construction in the Greenock and Port Glasgow area and that berths with capacity for 19 such vessels are vacant. It is expected that 10 merchant vessels will be launched in the next three months and a further six vessels in the succeeding three months. I understand that there are at present no orders in hand to replace these launches.

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that state of affairs is causing very grave alarm in Greenock?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, and I have informed the House on several occasions that we regard it as a matter of great urgency, although it is also a matter of considerable difficulty.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make any statement with regard to the future of this matter?

Mr. Stanley: Shortly, I hope.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether it is proposed to give legislative effect to all, or any, of the suggestions recently advanced by British ship owners for the assistance of the Mercantile Marine; and whether the reorganisation of the industry will be the fundamental condition to be complied with before State aid is given;
(2) whether his Department has arrived at any decisions for the reorganisation and strengthening of the British Mercantile Marine; and, if not, will he give an assurance that no reorganisation plan will be advanced without prior consultation with the accredited trade union representatives of officers and seamen;
(3) when he expects to be in a position to inform hon. Members of the Government's proposals for assistance to the Mercantile Marine and the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Stanley: The position of the shipping and shipbuilding industries is still under consideration by the Government, and a statement will be made as soon as possible, but I am afraid I am not yet in a position to indicate when this will be. I recognise the interest of officers and seamen in the matter. I have already received a deputation from the National Union of Seamen, the Navigat-


ing and Engineer Officers' Union, and the Transport and General Workers Union, and the points raised will receive full consideration before any decision is reached.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the last part of the first question, may I ask whether the question of a subsidy, that is to say, financial assistance, to the industry is the only matter under consideration, or whether the ship owners have furnished the right hon. Gentleman with proposals in respect of the reorganisation of the industry?

Mr. Stanley: I think the shipowners' proposals have already been published, but as far as the Government are concerned, of course, the whole question is under consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the proposals formulated by the shipowners nothing is said about reorganisation of the industry, putting their house in order, and are we to understand that all that is before the right hon. Gentleman is the question of whether the Government are to provide financial assistance?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. I have already said that the proposals of the shipowners did not contain any proposals for the fundamental reorganisation of the industry, but, as far as the Government are concerned, they are considering the whole position.

MILLING INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government are taking to adjust the balance between producer and consumer, which has been upset by the buying policy adopted by the milling combines?

Mr. Stanley: I am not aware that the buying policy of the large millers has upset the balance between producer and consumer, and see no reason why the Government should intervene.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the provision made under the first report of the Royal Commission in 1925 on food prices as to the known existence of price-fixing associations? Why have not the Food Council inquired into this, and does he still stick to it that there is nothing to inquire into?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. T. Williams: Have the consumers of offals made any representations to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and, if so, what steps have been taken to ascertain whether or not the charges levelled against the millers are correct?

Mr. Stanley: As to whether they have made representations, perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question, but, of course, I have been questioned on this matter, and it has been raised several times on the Adjournment, and I have given reasons why I consider the price of offals is governed by world prices.

Mr. Williams: What steps were taken to ascertain the point of view which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed before the House?

Mr. Stanley: The price of offals is largely governed by world prices.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that no steps were taken at all by the Board of Trade because they did not want an inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Stanley: The price of offals is largely governed by the world price of feeding stuffs.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the powers and jurisdiction of the Food Council in connection with the milling industry enable them adequately to prevent and safeguard the public against abuses?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained in the Debate on the Consumers' Council Bill on 10th February, I do not consider that the Food Council requires further powers to enable it to safeguard the public interest as regards products which fall within its province.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend tell us why the Food Council have not intervened in view of the widespread dissatisfaction about this matter?

Mr. Stanley: One of the reasons, of course, is that offal is not considered a food and does not come within their purview.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Has the milling industry now become Public Enemy No. 1 instead of the B.B.C.?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the quota of approximately 6s. per sack paid on flour and which the consumer is called upon to pay by the increased price of bread, he will consider introducing legislation to provide for additional taxation on the profits of the milling combines, seeing that at present they make no contribution in this respect?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): No, Sir. The profits of all businesses are chargeable to income tax and National Defence Contribution and my right hon. Friend can see no good reason for singling out a particular industry for additional taxation on its profits.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that flour is a national necessity, and why should it be exploited by certain monopolists who make enormous profits?

COTTON ENABLING BILL.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now ascertained the result of the ballot on the Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Bill; and whether he can now state what arrangements will be made to proceed with this matter?

Mr. Stanley: I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject very soon.

FOREIGN SILK AND COTTON GOODS.

Mr. Rickards: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the increasing importation of foreign silk, artificial silk, and cotton labels, ribbons, and bindings at prices below the manufacturing costs of British manufacturers; and whether he will take steps, by quota or otherwise, to protect British employment against this uneconomic competition?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware that there has been some increase in the imports of ribbons of artificial silk mixed with other materials, but the imports of the other goods to which my hon. Friend refers appear, from the available statistics, to have declined. I have no power to impose a quota restriction on imports of such goods and any question of an increase in the rate of duty is a matter for consideration, in the first instance, by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the importation of these goods is affecting the production and sale of similar woollen goods in this country?

Captain Strickland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make an Order, under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, that all imported silk, artificial silk, or cotton labels shall be marked with indications of origin between each label, as is the case with such labels imported into France and the United States of America?

Mr. Stanley: The Statutory Committee on Merchandise Marks considered and rejected the form of marking which my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, and unless new evidence can be produced that was not available to the Committee when they reported on this question, I should not feel justified in asking them to reconsider it.

Captain Strickland: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that the present system of marking enables imported goods to have that marking easily removed?

Mr. Stanley: That is one of the questions the Statutory Committee considered when they rejected the proposal. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any new evidence I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. R. Gibson: Do the same considerations apply to woollen goods as to these goods?

Captain Strickland: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have been undertaken by his Department during the past five years to 31st December, 1938, against importers and merchants, respectively, for evasions of the provisions of Section 8 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, by the removal, alteration, or obliteration of indications of origin in the case of imported silk, artificial silk, or cotton labels, ribbons, and bindings?

Mr. Stanley: Section 8 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, is not applicable to woven labels, as the Order applying to such labels does not require them to be marked on their importation or exposure for sale wholesale. There has been no prosecution by the Board of Trade for offences under this Section in respect of ribbons, but prosecutions under


the Act may be, and usually are, taken by the trading interests concerned, and, in that event, the prosecution might not come to my notice. The Order applying to bindings came into force only at the end of last year.

MINISTER'S VISIT, NORTHERN CAPITALS.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an assurance that the interests of the herring industry and, in particular, the necessity of securing wider sales for British fresh and cured herring in European countries will form a part of the objects of the forthcoming talks between himself, the Department of Overseas Trade, and the representatives of the Governments of Germany, Russia, and the Northern States?

Mr. Chorlton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consult with the proper trade bodies before his projected visit to Russia and the Northern Capitals?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the depressed state of the herring industry, the interests of this industry will be borne in mind in the negotiations that are shortly to be opened by His Majesty's Government with various European countries, for improving the existing volume of international trade?

Mr. Stanley: My Department are in constant touch with trade organisations and are always ready to receive representations, but the conversations to be undertaken in the capitals referred to are intended to be of a general and exploratory character.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend mean us to understand that he will receive representations, particularly from the herring trade, now on this matter?

Mr. Stanley: Yes. My right hon. Friend and I will be glad, if there is any information, to have it sent to us, but I would like it to be understood that in the main the conversations are of a general character.

Mr. Bellenger: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the visit to Russia and the Northern Capitals as being of an exploratory nature, do we understand that

he means that it will be connected only with trade questions and that no other aspects of our international policy will come under discussion?

Mr. Stanley: Oh, yes, these are trade matters.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the herring industry was a very fine market before the War in these countries, will special consideration be given to the possibility of restoring such relations as will ensure the rebuilding of that industry?

Mr. Stanley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully alive both to the importance and to the difficulties of the herring industry.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not a fact that the standard of life of the people of Russia has been lowered to such an extent that they cannot afford to buy our herring?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is it to be recognised as permissible in this House that every time Russia is mentioned hon. Gentlemen at the back are to make the most offensive references to it?

BRITISH FIRMS (JEWISH CAPITAL AND EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, during his forthcoming visit, to Berlin, he will represent to the German Government the undesirability of the German trade department requiring a statutory declaration which has to be registered with the German Embassy here, by any British firm seeking to export goods to Germany to the effect that the control of the firm is non-Jewish, that there are no Jewish employés, and that there is no Jewish-owned capital in the firm?

Mr. Stanley: I am not aware of the procedure referred to and have received no complaints in regard to it, but if the hon. Member will supply me with the information upon which the question is based, I will consider the matter further. I can say at once, however, that I would deprecate any requests addressed to firms in the United Kingdom by any foreign Government or its agents for information of this character.

GOVERNMENT WHEAT PURCHASES (SACKS).

Mr. Leslie Boyce: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether new


twill jute sacks are being purchased for the conveyance of Government wheat from the ports of arrival to destination for storage and, if so, what happens to such sacks when the journey has been completed; and whether he is aware that there is an efficient system for the hiring of sacks available at all ports at a low rate which would show a considerable saving over the purchase of new sacks specially for that purpose?

Mr. Stanley: Apart from certain wheats which are shipped from the country of origin in sacks, no sacks are used in this country for the transportation of Government wheat. A very small part of the Government reserve is stored in jute sacks which were bought for the purpose and remain the property of the Government. The question of hire was considered but, as the sacks will continue to be used for storage, it was decided, on the advice of the committee assisting the Food (Defence Plans) Department that it was more economical to purchase outright.

INDIA.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the India Trade Agreement will be completed; and if no agreement is reached on satisfactory deductions in the tariffs on textile cottons, will he take action to withdraw the great advantages at present enjoyed by India?

Mr. Stanley: Substantial progress is being made towards the conclusion of the trade negotiations with India, and I hope that it will be possible to conclude them before the existing agreement is due to expire.

Mr. Chorlton: Can my right hon. Friend say any date?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

DRAPERS' MEASURING MACHINES (INSPECTION).

Mrs. Tate: asked the President of the Board of Trade, under what authority machines are used instead of a yard-stick for the measurement of material in drapers' shops; whether these measuring machines are inspected and tested regularly by his inspectors; and whether they test the machines with material of varying thickness and texture?

Mr. Stanley: The Weights and Measures Acts do not require a yard-stick to be

used for the measurement of drapers' materials. Measuring machines or instruments are among the methods of measurement that may legally be adopted. Certain patterns of measuring instruments have been approved by the Board of Trade for the measurement of "cloth or other textile materials of firm substance and surface," and instruments of these patterns may be, and are, tested with such materials and stamped by inspectors of weights and measures. Verification and inspection of these machines is not at present compulsory, but the question of making Regulations under the Weights and Measures Acts to that effect will be considered in connection with the general examination of the Regulations that is now taking place.

Mrs. Tate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of material being of a thick or stretching nature the purchaser is actually cheated out of two inches per yard?

Mr. R. Gibson: How frequently are these machines inspected?

Mr. Stanley: I could not say without notice.

SULPHATE OF AMMONIA (EXPORT).

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of sulphate of ammonia exported in a form suitable for use as an agricultural fertiliser during 1938 and at what average f.o.b. price?

Mr. Stanley: During the year 1938, exports from the United Kingdom of sulphate of ammonia amounted to 313,000 tons, of an average declared value (f.o.b.) of £6 11s. 1d. per ton. I understand that all the sulphate of ammonia exported is in a state suitable for use as an agricultural fertiliser.

Mr. Morgan: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information which indicates the comparative price at which sulphate of ammonia is sold to the farmers?

Mr. Stanley: I could not answer without notice.

SUGAR REFINING AGREEMENT.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is satisfied that the Sugar Refining Act is being satisfactorily observed by the


refiners, and to what monetary extent increases have occurred in the refining margin agreed upon during the past 12 months?

Captain Wallace: The hon. Member is presumably referring to the assurance given by the refiners to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July, 1935. This assurance was to the effect that it was not the intention of the refiners in the circumstances then existing to raise the refining margin above the then existing level of approximately 13s. per cwt., except in so far as was necessitated by a general rise in the cost of labour and materials. The average refining margin for the last six months calculated in the manner prescribed in the Sugar Refining Agreement was 13s. 2½d. per cwt., being a farthing per cwt. higher than for the corresponding period 12 months ago. I am informed by Messrs. Tate and Lyle that they estimate the rise in the cost of labour and materials since 1935 at not less than 2½d. per cwt.

Mr. Morgan: Assuming that this country consumes 2,000,000 tons of sugar a year, is not this a very considerable advance, amounting to about £500,000 a year, and is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury satisfied that that is an authorised advance?

Captain Wallace: If the hon. Gentleman will read my answer he will see the position.

WOOLLEN MANUFACTURES (ITALIAN COMPETITION).

Mr. Holdsworth (for Mr. Hepworth): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the serious developments with regard to the competition of Italian woollen manufacturers with exports of Bradford woollen goods; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware that the competition of Italian woollen manufactures in certain export markets has lately become increasingly severe. His Majesty's Government are watching developments with a view to taking any action that may be possible to assist the British trade where necessary. If my hon. Friend has any special market in mind, perhaps he will send me particulars.

CEMENT (PRICE).

Mr. A. Jenkins (for Mr. Edwards): asked the President of the Board of Trade the cost price of manufacturing first-class cement as supplied in Government contracts, and whether he is satisfied that a fair price is being charged to the Government and other consumers?

Mr. Stanley: I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, a report by the Inter-departmental committee on the prices of building materials is, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health informed the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) yesterday, at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

UNION JACK.

16. Sir Robert Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the representations which have been made by various bodies representative of the Mercantile Marine with regard to the desirability of permitting British Mercantile Marine vessels to fly the Union Jack?

Mr. Stanley: A decision has not yet been reached, but I am considering the matter in consultation with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. Mander: Has it not been found in practice much safer to fly the Stars and Stripes?

CREWS' ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. R. Gibson (for Mr. Benjamin Smith): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any action has been taken to give effect to the recommendation of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, that masters should receive express instructions from shipowners to take a personal interest in all questions relating to crews' accommodation, and thus encourage co-operation between the crew and the officers on this important question?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. This recommendation was reproduced as an Introductory Note to the Crew Space Instructions of 1937, and paragraph 30 of the instructions provides that a master of a ship should frequently and regularly


inspect the crew's quarters and record the results at least once a week in the official log. Copies of the instructions were circulated by the shipowners' organisations to their members, with a request that they should provide each of their masters with a copy and call special attention to the introductory note and paragraph 30. In addition, the Board's marine superintendents affix a copy of paragraph 30 to all new copies of official log books.

Mr. Gibson (for Mr. Smith): asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken to ensure that repairs and disinfestation of crews' accommodation in coasting vessels, which cannot be carried out at ports of call while the men are still on board, are attended to at the home or terminal port?

Mr. Stanley: As regards outstanding repairs, Board of Trade surveyors make reports to their colleagues at other ports where such repairs can be effected. Any question with regard to disinfestation should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Gibson (for Mr. Smith): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the surveyors attached to his Department are required to supply him with particulars of serious defects to structure and defects of original construction reported to them by port medical officers of health or their inspectors engaged in examining crews' accommodation; and what action is taken in the light of such reports?

Mr. Stanley: Board of Trade surveyors are instructed to take appropriate action in regard to any structural defects brought to their notice. Where material structural alterations are involved the case is reported to headquarters for consideration. All such cases are dealt with on their merits in the light of the current Crew Space Instructions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men enrolled as recruits in the Regular and Territorial Armies in the 12 months ended, to the last convenient date; whether he is satisfied with the numbers in relation to the shortage to be made good; and whether he

is at present considering a further review of the conditions now offered to recruits?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The numbers of recruits finally approved for the Regular and Territorial Armies during the year ended 31st December, 1938, were 38,827 and 77,142 respectively, as against 26,094 and 45,320 for the preceding year. The strength of the Territorial Army is greater than at any time since the War, and the shortage in the Regular Army is being progressively reduced. With regard to the last part of the question, I would ask the hon. Member to await my right hon. Friend's speech on Army Estimates for 1939.

Mr. Day: Do we understand that the conditions are constantly under review?

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of applications for enlistment in the fighting forces in Scotland during 1939; and the number enlisted in the county of Fife in the same period?

Sir V. Warrender: During January, 1939, the number of applicants for enlistment in Scotland into the Regular Army and Supplementary Reserve was 899, of whom 533 were finally approved. Records of applicants for enlistment into the Territorial Army are not collated, but, during the same period, 857 recruits in Scotland were finally approved for the Territorial Army. If the right hon. Member wishes to have the figures for 1938, there were 7,899 applicants for enlistment into the Regular Army and Supplementary Reserve, of whom 4,639 were finally approved, and the number finally approved for the Territorial Army was 8,628. I regret that separate figures for the county of Fife are not available.

CONVICTED SOLDIER (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Edwin Homer, a corporal in the 15th Company, Royal Army Service Corps, stationed at York, was on 17th February fined £5, ordered to pay £2 7s. costs, and had his licence suspended for a year for being in charge of a motor car while under the influence of drink, and that on the following day application was made for him to drive military vehicles, when a letter from the commanding officer stated that unless the


application was granted the man's services would be lost to the Army; and whether he is satisfied that no work can be found for this man except that in which he has been convicted for driving to the public danger?

Sir V. Warrander: The facts are as stated in the question, and the justices have granted the soldier permission to drive military vehicles. It has, however, been decided to employ him on duties which will not normally involve driving.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTION SERVICES.

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended that Regular or Territorial soldiers should be taken from their own normal duties, should war break out, in order to fill the gaps in the air-raid pre cautions services?

Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir, but, in the event of air attack, one of the normal duties of the troops in this country would be to give such assistance as might be required.

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Does that mean that the Territorial Army and Regular Army will be used on the out-break of war as special constables, and is it not a rather dangerous policy if the Army is not available for training as an Army at the beginning of a war?

Sir V. Warrender: It does not mean that. My right hon. Friend in his Estimates speech last year said there might be many ways in which the organised forces might help the civil population, and all troops, whether Regular or Territorial, will be practised in that. That does not mean that their military training will be interfered with in any sense.

UNIFORM.

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War when the matter of the future Army uniform is to be settled?

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend may be able to refer to this matter in his Estimates speech.

OFFICERS' WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider increasing the rate of pensions paid to officers' widows in view of the

fact that the cost of living has considerably increased since this rate was fixed, and that many widows of officers who served their country honourably for many years are now living in very straitened circumstances?

Sir V. Warrenders: My hon. Friend is, I think, under a misapprehension. The rates of officers' widows' pensions were last reviewed in 1920, when the cost of living was considerably higher than it is to-day.

ALDERSHOT (VISIT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins: asked the Secretary of State for War, how many Members of both Houses of Parliament and others availed themselves of the opportunity of seeing the modern weapons and equipment at Aldershot on Wednesday, 22nd February?

Sir V. Warrender: 160 Members of both Houses of Parliament accepted the invitation. Altogether there were about 200 persons present.

Sir E. Makins: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to convey to the General Officer Commanding at Aldershot and to all ranks our deep appreciation of all the arrangements which were made for our convenience and all the courtesy which was shown to us during our visit?

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to ask the Minister whether it would not be more sensible if ⁁—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a proper supplementary question.

Sir V. Warrender: May I tell my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, pass on that expression of thanks with great pleasure. As a matter of fact, steps have already been taken to convey an expression of appreciation on the same lines to the military authorities at Aldershot.

Mr. Lawson: While agreeing that hon. Members were very well satisfied with what they saw, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can guarantee that there is a sufficient supply of all the equipment for the service of the troops?

Sir V. Warrender: As the hon. Member knows, much of the equipment which was shown to Members of this House was


the very latest equipment, and, that being so, it cannot be expected, obviously, that it should be issued to the fullest extent at the present time. Except for those items which are on the newest list, production is going along very well.

Mr. Mathers: Is the War Office aware of the desire of members of the public to have some access to the information and to see the equipment that was shown to Members of Parliament, and is consideration being given to that aspect of the matter?

Sir William Davison: Will foreign nations also be kept informed?

TERRITORIAL ARMY CADETS (POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS).

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the rules in the Territorial Army cadet force regarding the association of individual cadets with any youth organisation of a political party?

Sir V. Warrender: There are no rules on the matter.

Mr. Thurtle: If I bring to the attention of the hon. Member a case where a cadet has been penalised for his political activities, will he take some action in the matter?

Sir V. Warrender: I would rather like to see the case. The War Department is

List of Divisional Food Officers.


Name.
Division.
Headquarters.
Amount of Fee (per annum).





Guineas.


Sir Arthur Lambert, M. C., D. L., J.P.
Northern
Newcastle-on-Tyne
100


Mr. P. A. Barran, J.P.
North Eastern
Leeds
100


Mr. H. G. Houghton
Northwestern
Manchester
100


Mr. W. O. MacArthur, C.B.E.
North Midland
Nottingham
100


Sir James Curtis, K.B.E., D.L., J.P.
Midland
Birmingham
100


Lieut.-Colonel O. M. Lanyon, D.S.O., J.P.
Eastern
Cambridge
100


Major C. R. Dudgeon, J.P
Eastern II
Chelmsford
100


Brigadier-General J. M. Young, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.
London (Metropolitan Police Area.
London
100


Mr. Willoughby Bullock, O.St. J.
South Eastern
Tunbridge Wells
100


Lieut.-Colonel E. Tennant
Southern
Reading
100


Mr. F. T. Lee-Norman, M. C., A. M. I. C. E.
Southwestern
Bristol
100


Major W. Lloyd-Griffith, M. B. E. J.P.
North Wales
Caernarvon
100


Sir Thomas Jones, K. B. E
South Wales
Cardifif
100


Colonel W. D. Scott, D. S. O., M. C., D. L., J.P.
West of Scotland
Glasgow
100


Mr. J. Erskine Dods, O. B. E. M.A.LL.B., S.S.C.
South East of Scotland
Edinburgh
50


Mr. G. Bennett Mitchell, M.B.E., D.L., J P F R I B.A. F.S.I.
North East of Scotland
Aberdeen
50


Mr. W. Aiken, F.I.M.T.A., J.P.
East of Scotland
Dundee
50


Captain R. E. Sawyer
North of Scotland
Inverness
50

Note.—Sir James Peck. C.B., is Chief Divisional Food Officer for Scotland, but being a Civil Servant receives no retaining fee.

not responsible for the cadet organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVISIONAL FOOD OFFICERS.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the persons connected with his Department who are receiving a retaining fee in connection with duties to be performed in the event of war, and the amount in each case of such fees?

Mr. Stanley: No such retaining fees are paid except to the Divisional Food Officers. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the Official Report a list of those officers, showing the fees paid.

Mr. Mander: Can the Minister say whether these persons were invited to perform the duties without any retaining fee?

Mr. Stanley: I answered that question fully last year. I explained that these gentlemen have for some years been appointed by the Board of Trade and have always been paid a retaining fee.

Mr. Bellenger: Will it be possible in circulating these particulars to include the ages of these gentlemen?

Following is the list:

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (BRITISH LEGION).

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a national guard to be recruited from the membership of the British Legion to act in an emergency in guarding vital parts of the country and so release our second line of defence, the Territorials, for more active service, having in mind the response made by the British Legion in the September crisis when its services were immediately offered?

Sir V. Warrender: The War Office has already invited the British Legion to assist in recruiting the National Defence Companies, whose duty it will be to protect vulnerable points in emergency, and it is hoped to arrange a meeting with representatives of the Legion in order to discuss the matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any conference has been held between the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Association of County Councils in Scotland, on the desirability of amendment of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926; whether proposals have been considered for speedy amendment of the foregoing Act, with special reference to the supply of lime; whether he is aware that the County Councils Association are desirous of this; and what action does he propose to meet the desires of the Association?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): A meeting has taken place between representatives of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Association of County Councils in Scotland, and I am fully aware of the association's proposals for amendment of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act. As the hon. Member is aware, I am at present in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as to whether a committee should be set up to inquire into the whole matter.

RENTS (RENFREWSHIRE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware

that, as a result of a scheme for the standardisation of rents operated by the Renfrew County Council, some tenants are being compelled to pay an increase of from 50 to 105 per cent. in their rents; and whether he will take steps to intervene, as was done recently with the Glasgow House owners' Association to prevent this additional burden being placed upon the people of Renfrewshire?

Mr. Colville: I am aware that the county council's scheme involves increases of rent in certain cases. As, however, an action challenging the validity of the scheme is at present before the Court of Session, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Gallacher: Apart from the fact that there is a case in court, is it not possible for the Minister to get in touch with the authorities? It is always possible for the proceedings to be withdrawn.

Mr. Colville: As the matter is sub judice I cannot say anything at the moment.

EDUCATION (FOLK LORE AND LOCAL HISTORY).

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that during the past 18 months, the students in some 4,800 schools in Eire have been encouraged to collect folk-lore, proverbs and local history, and that as a result, the Irish Folk-Lore Commission has been placed in possession of a vast amount of valuable historical and philological material; and whether he will take steps through the Scottish Education Department, or otherwise, to organise a similar collection and preservation of folk-lore and history in Scotland?

Mr. Colville: I appreciate the value of the collection and preservation of folklore and local history and I am making inquiries about the arrangement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in the first part of his question. As regards the second part, it is open to the managers of any school to submit for approval revised schemes of work in any subject of the curriculum. Should any school submit proposals for the inclusion in its curriculum of work such as is described in the question, they will be sympathetically considered on their merits. I may add that a memorandum on the teaching of history, which the Scottish Education


Department hope to issue in the course of the year, will draw attention to the claims of local history as an important element in historical teaching.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great cultural effect that such research work would have upon the students concerned, and is he aware that it is highly desirable, if this matter is to be dealt with at all, that it should not be dealt with only by isolated local effort but organised by the Education Department?

Mr. Colville: I think my answer indicated my interest in the subject.

Mr. R. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in view the possibility of making use of the National Library in collating all that material?

Mr. Colville: I will keep that point in view.

HOUSING (GOWKHALL, FIFESHIEE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Fife County Council are unable to erect much-needed new houses at Gowkhall to accommodate families from Carnock owing to the absence of drainage facilities; and, as the low rateable value of Carnock makes it impossible to find the necessary money to institute the required drainage, will he enter into negotiations with the county council for the purpose of giving the necessary assistance?

Mr. Colville: I am informed by the county council that in their view the housing needs of this locality can best be met by building at Comrie and that they do not, therefore, propose to build at Gowkhall.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not very undesirable that through lack of drainage villages should be left to decay and the inhabitants drafted to another village at some distance away from where they have been accustomed to live? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not make a special effort to get the necessary finance to secure drainage for villages which require it?

Mr. Colville: The selection of housing sites is primarily a matter for the local

authority, and they have expressed to me the view that the case could be better dealt with at Comrie.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the reason this, that it would cost too much to put in drainage where the people are at the present time?

Mr. Colville: That is not the reason given to me by the local authority.

INFORMATION (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what local authorities in Scotland have made complaints to his Department when asked for information arising out of Parliamentary Questions since January, 1938?

Mr. Colville: I do not think that I would be justified in particularising the local authorities who have indicated difficulty in complying, often at short notice, with requests for information asked for in Parliamentary Questions. Such requests may on occasion involve considerable labour and research; and, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, Scottish local authorities, both individually and through their associations, have from time to time made representations about the heavy burden placed on their staffs by demands for complicated statistical information.

Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that last week he stated in answer to a question that certain local authorities resented making inquiries arising from Parliamentary Questions, and does he now withdraw that charge against local authorities?

Mr. Colville: No, Sir. What I say is that I do not think I should be justified in particularising the local authorities who have complained about the amount of work involved. So far as I know, no local authority has refused any information, but many local authorities have hoped that the demand for it may be lessened.

Mr. Gallacher: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many local authorities controlled by Moderate councillors are using this argument to discourage any criticism of their administration by Members of Parliament, even where it concerns housing and health?

Mr. Colville: I can assure hon. Members that the complaints which I have heard do not come solely from councils which have Moderate majorities.

Mr. Davidson: May I ask the Minister not to make such charges in future unless he is prepared to back them up?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member may rest assured that I make no charge at all, but I must say, in the interests of the local authorities, that some questions require a great deal of research, and that some questions are of very much less public value than others.

LANDHOLDERS' SETTLEMENT, DUNVEGAN, SKYE.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the Claigan Farm, Dunvegan, Syke, small landholders' settlement was constituted; how many holdings were formed; what was the total compensation paid to the landowner; whether such compensation covered the claim for extra factoring; and how many holdings are now vacant;
(2) whether tenants who vacated their holdings on the Claigan Farm, Dunvegan, Skye, landholders' settlement, have received settlement of their claims for permanent improvements and respective shares of the club sheep stock; who paid such claims; whether State loans to former tenants of vacated holdings have been repaid and, if so, by whom; and what arrangements are being made for future tenants and continuation of the settlement?

Mr. Colville: The settlement at Claigan, which forms part of a private estate, was constituted at Whitsunday, 1926, and comprised 14 holdings. The total compensation paid to the landowner was £2,350, which covered any claim for additional factoring. Nine holdings are temporarily vacant, but I am not in possession of particulars as to the settlement of the claims of the former tenants in respect of permanent improvements. Payment of compensation for such improvements is a landlord's obligation. As regards the sheep stock club, the responsibility for paying the valuations of outgoing tenants has been assumed temporarily by the Department of Agriculture and the obligations of former tenants in respect of shares so taken over have accordingly

been extinguished. Repayment of outstanding balances of building loans made to the former tenants has not yet been arranged. As to the future of the holdings, the owner has agreed to consider a revision of the scheme, and the Department are about to make proposals on this subject.

Mr. Davidson: What is the total amount that was paid to the owner in compensation at the beginning of this settlement scheme, and has any immediate scheme been brought forward for the resettlement of those who have vacated their holdings?

Mr. Colville: I think my answer gives the figure of the total amount paid to the landowner at the outset and, as I have said, we are bringing forward proposals for a new scheme and I hope to be able to make a statement about it in a short time.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that many answers from the Government Front Bench are more satisfactory than others?

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can account for the alarming fall in population and agricultural resources disclosed in the report of the Highlands and Islands Committee; and whether any action is contemplated for the extension of marketing facilities, means of transport, electric power, forestry, quarrying, and other industries through the use of available water power as a means of providing supplementary incomes for the crofting population?

Mr. Colvilles: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the report of the Highlands and Islands Committee indicated that the fall in the Highland population has been very small in recent years. As regards action on the report, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave on 7th of February to a question by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered a resolution from the Skye District Council regarding the recent visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Island of Skye; and what reply has been sent?

Mr. Colville: I have not received any resolution from the Skye District Council on this subject.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make available the results of the investigations recently conducted into land settlement, crofting, and fishing in Skye?

Mr. Colville: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the inquiries carried out in Skye by the Highlands and Islands Committee of the Scottish Economic Committee. The report of the Committee has been published, and deals with the Highlands and Islands as a whole.

Mr. Leonard: Did not the Undersecretary recently take a five days' tour of the Island of Skye, and, if so, will he say whether he gathered any information in the course of his investigation?

Mr. Colville: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the investigation that was carried out by the Highlands and Islands Committee. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was recently on the fisheries patrol ship for two or three days while it was carrying out the patrol.

Mr. Leonard: I endeavoured to make quite clear the object of the question, but I could not get it passed by the Table.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEMBERS' LIABILITY).

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the apprehension that exists in Scotland among the town and county councillors who are tenants of municipally-owned dwelling-houses as a result of the decision given in the Aberdeen sheriff court that any such councillor who has taken part in a decision relating to any municipal housing matter is in contravention of Section 107 of the Housing Act of 1925 and is liable to be fined; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. West wood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to take any steps to ensure that town and county councillors who are members of co-operative societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts will not be prejudiced in comparison with their colleagues who are shareholders in companies incorporated under the Companies Acts?

Mr. Colville: I am aware of the difficulties referred to, and I have the position under review.

Mr. Johnston: In view of the urgency of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House indication as to when, he proposes to take any steps to deal with it? Is he aware that a town councillor has already been fined in the sheriff's court for supportinga resolution which actually involved an increase in his own rent?

Mr. Colville: I appreciate that the question is one of considerable urgency, and I hope to be able to make a statement about it at an early date.

BRACKEN.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the serious encroachment of bracken: on Scottish hill grazings and the consequent decline of stock-carrying capacity in these areas; and whether, in view of the ineffectiveness of the existing assistance offered owing to the steep and rough nature of much of the ground, he will consider measures of assistance in respect of bracken cut by hand labour?

Mr. Colville: I am aware of the bracken problem to which my hon. Friend refers. As he is no doubt aware the object of the present scheme of assistance has been to encourage the development of machine cutting. Since 1936, grants have been paid in respect of the purchase of 136 machines capable of cutting over 17,000 acres twice a year (at the proper seasons). The total subsidies paid amount to £2,407. I am keeping the question under review.

Mr. Snadden: Will this matter be considered by the Minister of Agriculture in preparing his long-term policy for agriculture?

Mr. Colville: The matter is predominantly a Scottish question. I am examining it carefully in the light of my hon. Friend's question and of other information.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Is it not the case that in many part of Scotland it is impossible to cut the bracken by machinery?

Mr. Johnston: What is the total amount provided in the Estimates for research work into bracken? Ten pounds?

Mr. Colville: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had better give me notice of the question regarding the exact amount. In answer to the other supplementary questions, I am aware that it is difficult, if not impossible, for machines to work in certain country. The matter presents difficulties, but I am examining the whole problem.

Mr. R. Gibson: Is the Minister keeping in view the possibility of reducing bracken by increasing the number of stock on the land?

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Neil MacLean: Is not the bracken peril increasing and not diminishing in Scotland, and will the Minister not take instant steps to have it dealt with?

Mr. Colville: I have indicated that I am concerned about the growth of bracken.

Mr. Maclean: What are you doing about it?

SPECIAL AREAS HOUSING ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Erskine Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement as to the future organisation and functions of the Scottish Special Areas Housing Association?

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir. The Council of the Scottish Special Areas Housing Association, with the concurrence of the Commissioner for the Special Areas in Scotland and myself, have invited Viscount Traprain to be Chairman of the Association in succession to Sir David Allen Hay, who has expressed his desire to relinquish the post shortly on account of the claims of other work. As regards the Association's functions, the authority of the Court of Session is at present being sought to an amendment of its constitution to enable it to undertake the building of houses for experimental or demonstration purposes outside the Special Areas. The Association has also, at the request of the Government, and subject to the passing of the necessary legislation, agreed to act as the public corporation for Scotland for the construction of the camps that are to be erected in pursuance of the policy recently announced by the Lord Privy Seal. Arrangements are under active consideration for the strengthening of the executive and technical staff of the Association to enable it to carry out its wider duties.

Mr. Johnston: What are Lord Traprain's qualifications for this post?

Mr. Colville: I think it is usual in such cases to publish a notice in the Press, and I propose to do so.

ICE RINK SITE, ABERDEEN.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in December last the Aberdeen Ice Rink, Limited, published an invitation to subscribe capital on the basis that their offer to feu a certain site had been accepted by the town council; that the land had not then been advertised for public roup in accordance with statutory requirements; that when it was so advertised prospective bidders of a higher feu-duty found that the articles of roup contained a condition that the site could be used only for an ice rink; and whether, in view of the fact that by this condition the statutory safeguard for the ratepayers was rendered illusory, he will take steps to annul this transaction or otherwise to safeguard the public interest?

Mr. Colville: I have no information with regard to the first part of the question. As regards the remainder of the question, I am informed by the corporation that, on receipt of an offer by the company to purchase a piece of land forming part of the common good of the city, they indicated that they were prepared to dispose of the land in accordance with the statutory procedure. The land was subsequently advertised for public roup on three successive weeks, as required by Statute, under conditions allowing a building to be erected for use as an ice rink or for such other purposes as the town council might approve. As I have already indicated to the hon. Member, the matter is not one in regard to which I have any jurisdiction.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, by the sale of this land with a label attached to it indicating that it was for an ice rink, the only persons who were prepared to pay a much higher price for the land were dissuaded from buying it, and that the council thereby evaded the statutory safeguards laid down by this House?

Mr. Colville: My information is that the town council of Aberdeen indicated that it was to be used for an ice rink or such other purposes as the council might approve.

Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and to the fact that it will be necessary to give fuller details of this transaction, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the first opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING SOCIETIES (GOVERNMENT BILL).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any approximate date on which the Government propose to introduce their Bill relating to building societies?

Captain Wallace: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st February, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) in the course of which he said that the Bill would be introduced at an early date. I am not yet in a position to amplify that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY PROPERTY (RATES).

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the anomaly caused by the refusal of the Treasury to make any contribution in lieu of rates for property occupied by the Territorial Association, in a similar manner to the existing contributions now made for property occupied by the Regular Army; and, in view of the psychological effect of this discrimination against the Territorial Army on local authorities, what steps he proposes to remedy this situation?

Captain Wallace: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes).

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the approximate cost to the Exchequer of increasing the non-contributory old age pension to 12s. 6d., and to 15s., respectively?

Captain Wallace: The cost of increasing the old age pension to all pensioners

aged 70 and over from 10s. to 12s. 6d. a week would be about £12,500,000 a year, and the cost of increasing the pension to 15s. would be double this amount. These annual costs would increase from year to year with the growth in numbers of the aged population. If the increase of pension were restricted to those persons who could satisfy the means test for non-contributory old age pensions, the cost would be slightly reduced, but there are no statistics on which the amount of the saving could be estimated.

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether in estimating those figures account was taken of the consequent reductions there would be in the demands upon public assistance?

Captain Wallace: No, Sir. I was asked a perfectly simple statistical question, and I have answered it.

Mr. Shinwell: On the assumption that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures are correct, is it beyond the capacity of the country to meet that increased charge in order to provide proper treatment for the old age pensioners?

Captain Wallace: That is an entirely different question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ELECTRICITY IN MINES (INQUIRY).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines the names of those who have accepted his invitation to serve on the committee that is to investigate the electricity regulations; what are to be their terms of reference; and whether he will ask the committee to expedite their report in view of the recommendation made on page 367 of the report of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The committee will be constituted as follows:

Professor William Cramp (Chairman).
Mr. J. A. B. Horsley.
Mr. A. M. Bell.
Mr. A. G. Connell.

The terms of reference are:
To be a committee to consider, in the light of experience and modern practice, what amendments are required in the general regulations governing the use of electricity below


ground and above ground at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, taking into consideration the report of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines and the evidence on the subject submitted to that Commission.
I do not expect that the inquiry will be a long one, and I am sure the committee will permit no unnecessary delay in presenting their report.

Mr. Smith: Is it the intention to take evidence from representative people; and will the Minister recommend the committee to consult the research workers and the officials of the Safety in Mines Research officials at Buxton?

Captain Crookshank: I should not like to prejudge what the committee are likely to do; after all, that is their own business.

Mr. A. Jenkins: What length of time is the inquiry expected to take? We have already had three years' delay in the case of the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines.

Captain Crookshank: I could not possibly say how long it will take. I have said that I do not expect it will take very long, but the hon. Gentleman will recollect that the setting up of this committee was one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Jenkins: Are there any representatives of the workpeople on this committee?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir; it is a technical committee of electrical engineers.

Mr. Jenkins: Are there no technical workpeople?

Mr. Jagger: Are there no practical workpeople?

OIL EXTRACTION PLANT, BEDLAY COLLIERY, GLENBORG.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has investigated the claims made for the oil-from-coal plant erected at Bedlay Colliery, Glenborg; and, if so, whether he can state the result of such investigation?

Captain Crookshank: The company owning this plant have kept my Department informed regarding the development of their process, but, as the plant has only recently been put into operation, it is, I fear, too early to make any definite statement about results.

UNDERGROUND WAGE-EARNERS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of wage-earners who were employed below ground in the coalmines in Great Britain to the last convenient date in 1937; and the number for the comparable date in 1930?

Captain Crookshank: The number of wage-earners employed below ground in the coal mines of Great Britain at 11th December, 1937, was 624,445. The number so employed at 13th December, 1930, was 719,360.

INSPECTION DIVISIONS.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines what changes are intended in the divisions of the mines of the country for the purpose of inspection, and when are they to be put into operation?

Captain Crookshank: A detailed scheme is being prepared for reorganising the inspection divisions on the general basis recommended in the Royal Commission's report, and to deal also with the associated questions of recruitment, conditions of service and remuneration, in regard to which the Commission also made important recommendations. The work is proceeding as speedily as possible, but I am not yet able to say what the changes will be or how soon they can take effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — PITCH-BLENDE DEPOSITS, CORNWALL.

Mr. Beechman: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the large quantity of pitch-blende in the west of Cornwall, he will cause a survey to be made for the purpose of ascertaining whether radium can be obtained there from in sufficient quantity to justify development?

Captain Crookshank: I am advised that, although pitch-blende is known to occur in several places in Cornwall, very few deposits have been of commercial value. These deposits have now been worked out or contain such low grade ores that they do not justify processing for the recovery of radium. The Geological Survey of Great Britain, for which my Noble Friend the Lord President of the Council is responsible, is now completing a comprehensive investigation into the mineral resources of Cornwall, and in these circumstances it does not appear


that any advantage would accrue from the institution of a separate survey of the kind suggested.

Mr. Beechman: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the production of pitch-blende in West Cornwall was initiated before the War, and was abandoned during the War because the operations happened to be in charge of a German? Is it not in the national interest that these resources should be properly investigated?

Captain Crookshank: My hon. Friend's question deals with having a survey, and I have just pointed out that the Geological Survey of Great Britain is now completing a comprehensive report.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Lord Privy Seal the names of the persons connected with his Department who are receiving a retaining fee in connection with duties to be performed in the event of war; and the amount in each case of such fees?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I have not so far had occasion to make any arrangements of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to continue that same wise policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Lord Privy Seal why normal engineering practice has been departed from in the Home Office Specification, etc., in regard to permanent lining of trenches, reissue of January, 1939, where the specification allows 25 per cent. greater stresses than standard practice permits in spite of the fact that the trenches may have to stand up to more than normal stresses?

Sir J. Anderson: It would be difficult to say that there is any code which represents normal engineering practice in construction of this kind; and I am advised that the safety factor provided and described by reference to certain codes established for other purposes is sufficient for this purpose.

Mr. Parker: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the second issue, January, 1939, of the Home Office document entitled

Specification, etc., in regard to permanent lining of trenches, specified stresses 25 per cent. in excess of normal practice instead of the safety factor of three which was specified in the original issue, November, 1938, in order to cover errors of calculation made in the preparation of such original issue, and will be make a statement?

Sir J. Anderson: I am assured by my technical advisers that the change in this case is one of language only.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN REFUGEES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any obligation for former Austrian subjects living in this country to accept German citizenship; and whether they have the alternative choice of remaining here as stateless persons or, in due course, qualifying for British nationality?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): An Austrian living in this country is not required by the Home Office to apply to the German authorities for recognition as a German citizen, and the question of his doing so is one for him alone to decide. An Austrian, already admitted to this country, who became stateless, would not on that account be required to leave, but a number of refugees from Austria have been allowed to come here on condition that they emigrate, and they will be required to leave as soon as the arrangements are made. An Austrian who had the necessary residential qualification and was otherwise eligible, would be at liberty, like any other foreigner, to apply for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation.

Mr. Mander: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give the widest publicity to the statement he has made, in view of the endeavours that are being made to put pressure on certain individuals in this country?

Mr. Lloyd: The statement has been made on several occasions previously.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the administrative county of Dur-


ham there are 11,069 old age pensioners whose pensions have to be supplemented by the public assistance committee, costing the county for the year 1938, £289,484; and, having regard to the very high poor rate in the county, will he at an early date introduce a scheme for the equalisation of the poor rate, so as to spread the burden of the maintenance of the poor equally over the whole country?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): On 1st January, 1939, the latest date for which information is available, the number of old age pensioners in receipt of poor relief in Durham Administrative County was 11,381—a figure rather higher than that given by the hon. Member. As regards cost, my right hon. Friend has no information at present, but a figure will be available as a result of the circular which has been sent out. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 16th of this month to a question by the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins).

Mr. Stewart: If nothing can be done on the lines set out in the question, is it the intention at an early date to increase the amount paid to old age pensioners, in order to make them independent of Poor Law relief?

Mr. Bernays: I cannot add anything to the statements which have already been made on this subject.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement made last Thursday is buzzing all round the North?

Mr. Bernays: I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Mathers: Is this information being collected from all counties?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAY CAMPS.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Minister of Health whether, in drawing up any scheme which may be thought desirable for the establishment of holiday camps, he will have careful regard to the desirability of placing them in such situations that they do not cause unfair competition with existing seaside resorts,

where the livelihood of many persons depends on maintaining the number of visitors?

Mr. Bernays: The primary peace-time use of the 50 camps at present contemplated is for school children. Having regard to the fact that both for this purpose, and in order to be most useful as an aid to evacuation in war-time, the camps should be within a reasonable distance of the large urban centres, my right hon. Friend thinks there is no ground for anticipating competition with seaside resorts.

Mr. Garro Jones: What does the hon. Gentleman regard as a reasonable distance? Can he give an approximate idea of the distance he has in mind?

Mr. Bernays: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has it been decided, or is this one of the matters that have not yet been decided?

Mr. Bernays: I could not, without notice, state the exact figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPULATION.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the rapid decrease in population which will soon take place, he will state what steps the Government proposes to take in the near future to increase the birth rate?

Mr. Bernays: While my right hon. Friend does not wish to be taken as assenting to my hon. Friend's assumption that a rapid decrease in the population will soon take place, it is intended to study the problem further in the light of the information which will be forthcoming under the recent Population (Statistics) Act.

Mr. Pilkington: Does my hon. Friend realise that this problem will become more difficult of solution the longer it is left?

Mr. Bernays: As a matter of fact, since the Population (Statistics) Bill was passed by this House, the population has increased.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is the inquiry, which was started 18 months ago by the Government in order to prove the obvious, going to be reported on shortly, so as to enable a definite statement of policy to be accepted?

Mr. Bernays: A much more extensive investigation than has yet been possible will be necessary before a definite statement can be made.

Mr. Thurtle: Is it not an obvious fact that the population is still steadily increasing?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (BOMB EXPLOSIONS).

Mr. MacLaren: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a statement as to the cause of the bomb explosions in Haifa and Jerusalem which caused the deaths of 32 Arabs and injury to 50 others; also whether any arrests have been made or search for arms consequent upon the disaster?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As regards the first part of the question, so far as my information goes, it would appear that the general cause of these incidents is the present political tension in Palestine. As regards the second part, I have no detailed information at present, but am asking the High Commissioner for a further report.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESS), 1937.

Copy presented,—of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good an Excess on the Grant for the Foreign Office for the year ended 31st March, 1938 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 73.]

Oral Answers to Questions — LIMITATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Christopher York, Esquire, for the County of York (West Riding) (Ripon Division).

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

WHEAT (AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to amend the Wheat Act, 1932," presented by Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith; supported by Mr. Colville, Captain Wallace, Mr. Ramsbotham, and Mr.

Wedderburn; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Gardner and Colonel Mayhew; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Peake.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Access to Mountains Bill): Mr. Bernays, Mr. Butcher, and Mr. Lloyd; and had appointed in substitution: Miss Cazalet, Mr. Lindsay, and Mr. Ramsbotham.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Bill): the Lord Advocate, the Attorney-General, Mr. Chapman, Miss Lloyd George, Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Arthur Reed, Sir Robert Smith, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Henderson Stewart, Dr. Summerskill, Mr. Tinker, and Mr. Viant.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Export Guarantees Bill,

Czecho-Slovakia (Financial Assistance) Bill,

Currency and Bank Notes Bill, without Amendment.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely, That it is desirable that the London Government Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament: to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

BREAKING UP OF STREETS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of seven Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Breaking up of Streets by Statutory


Undertakers, pursuant to the Commons message of the 22nd of December last: and they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room No. 4 on Tuesday the 7th of March next, at Eleven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bill should originate in the House of Lords, namely,

Scottish Union and National Insurance Company (Substituted Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SPAIN.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the decision of His Majesty's Government to grant unconditional recognition to Spanish insurgent forces dependent upon foreign intervention constitutes a deliberate affront to the legitimate Government of a friendly Power, is a gross breach of international traditions, and marks a further stage in a policy which is steadily destroying in all democratic countries confidence in the good faith of Great Britain.
Before dealing with the main substance of the Motion, I will revert for a moment to the conditions under which this House was made aware of this decision. The Prime Minister was under a pledge to communicate to this House, at the earliest opportunity, the decision come to with regard to the recognition of General Franco. On Thursday, replying to a question put by me, he had an opportunity of acquainting the House. He evaded the question. In the French Chamber on 24th February, M. Daladier, the French Prime Minister, made the following statement:
Do you find it a matter of no moment that on 22nd February we received advice that the British Government considered that the hour had come to recognise General Franco and that we should wait no longer, since certain declarations by the General regarding the independence of Spain and his domestic policy were calculated to afford satisfaction?
I take it, unless the Prime Minister contradicts me, that M. Daladier was stating the facts when he said that he had received that advice. Obviously, there had been a decision prior to last Thursday, when this House was informed that the Prime Minister could make no further statement. Therefore, the Prime Minister was not carrying out his pledge to the House to acquaint it at the earliest possible moment. The Prime Minister, in answer to questions yesterday, seemed to be surprisingly vague on the whole matter. He came down to announce to this House an important decision of policy. When asked when that decision was made, he asked for notice, and, first of all, tried to say that he did not quite understand the question. Later on he again asked for notice, and finally he told us that the final decision had been come to during the week-end. What does he mean by "the final decision" in that respect?
The "Times," in an elaborate attempt to explain away the position to-day, quoted at considerable length from Sir William Anson's book with regard to the proper activities of Ministers, but the essential point is that, whether a Prime Minister is authorised to take action or not, he must have the agreement of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is, after all, the Government, not the Prime Minister, and we are entitled to know whether, as a matter of fact, any decision was come to by the Cabinet. As far as I understand the Prime Minister, the Cabinet handed over their responsibilities to the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he has a general right to act, or whether this special authority was given at Wednesday's meeting, but it is certainly a surprising commentary on the Cabinet. One can understand the Cabinet coming to a decision and then giving the power to the Prime Minister to put that decision into effect at a particular time, but in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), the Prime Minister said that he was given authority to say when and where this decision should be made. That is the effective decision by the Government, when they empowered the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister objects to being cross-examined on this matter. That is a new line for the Prime Minister to take.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I said "without notice."

Mr. Attlee: "Without notice." Really, I have known junior Ministers try to escape from answering obvious questions by asking for notice, but I have never known a Prime Minister, who has just taken an important action on foreign affairs, acting on authority given him by the Cabinet, having to ask for notice before he could say when the decision was made. The right hon. Gentleman must be in an extraordinarily hazy condition of mind if he cannot recall when he did that. When the Prime Minister said he was not going to be cross-examined, he might have been a dictator addressing the Fascist Grand Council. I would remind the Prime Minister that he is a British Prime Minister, and, with all the honour that belongs to that position, he also accepts certain responsibilities, and one of these is the responsibility of answering for his actions in the House of Commons to Members of Parliament. I


would remind Members of all parties that they also have the duty of questioning the Prime Minister and the Government upon their attitude.
Really what it came to was a pitiful evasion of the issue by trying to suggest that a decision had not been made. It is quite obvious that the Prime Minister had made up his mind and had notified the Prime Minister of another country of that act of policy which he refused to communicate to this House. That is not the way to treat the House of Commons. One looks to see what could have been the reason for this kind of smart trick. I think it is just part of a kind of Spenlow and Jorkins business which has been going on between the reactionary elements in this Government and the French Government, throughout the whole of this Spanish affair. They have all made an attempt to say, "It was not our fault; the other people did it first." When any particular thing of a base nature has to be done, an effort is always made to try and put the responsibility on to the other Government. This seems to have been a device to allow M. Daladier to speak first. I say that that is a trick, but a trick which was trumped by the French Prime Minister, because he revealed that he was doing it on the advice and pressure of this Government.
Now let me turn to the question which is raised here of the recognition. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite are glad to leave that side of the question. It is unprecedented in my experience in this House for a Prime Minister to do such a thing as that. The point is the question of the recognition of General Franco, and the Prime Minister's statement which he made to justify his action was a tissue of half truths, which are worse than lies. He said in that statement that the greater part of Spain was now in the control of General Franco as if that were a new factor. But the larger part of Spain has been in the hands of General Franco since the fall of Bilbao, and it does not alter the fact that a quarter of Spain is still in the power of the Republican Government. He even tries to make out, by stressing the undoubted resources in Franco Spain, that, after all, the part of Spain in control of the Republic is very small and very weak, but it contains Madrid, Valencia, and

Cartagena and the greater portion of its commerce and its industry.
Then there is the disgraceful allegation, made without the slightest foundation, that there is not an effective Government in Republican Spain. There is an effective Government and an effective army of more than 500,000 men. Those are not the conditions which justify the recognition of General Franco either de facto or de jure, and certainly they do not justify the taking away of recognition from Republican Spain. The latter course is a course that is taken very, very seldom, and in the practice of this country only under very special conditions. I would like to refer a little to what is the position in international law. I cannot hope to interest the Prime Minister, because he is not interested in international law. He has done more than any man to show his contempt for international law and to break down the rules of international law. But I will give quotations with regard to the question of recognition of belligerents. Sir William Harcourt, who was a great authority, states:
While the issue can be still considered in any degree in ambiguo, the presumption is necessarily in favour of the former Sovereign and a friendly State is bound to exact very conclusive and indisputable evidence that the sovereignty of a government with which it has existing relations over any part of its former dominions had been finally and permanently divested. It is not at liberty during the pendency of an actual struggle to speculate on the result or to assume the probability of the ultimate failure of the ancient sovereign, however plausible may be the grounds for such an inference. What the claimant to recognition has to show is an accomplished and de facto, not a probable or paulo post futurum independence. This I believe to be the accurate rule of international law.''
That was dealing with the revolt of certain Colonial territories, but is applicable to new governments after civil wars. The point is also dealt with in Hall's International Law:
Until independence is so consummated that it may reasonably be expected to be permanent, insurgents remain legally subject to the State from which they are trying to separate. Premature recognition therefore is a wrong done to the parent State; in effect indeed it amounts to an act of intervention. Hence great caution ought to be exercised by third Powers in granting recognition; and except where reasons of policy interfere to prevent strict attention to law, it is seldom given unless in circumstances which set its propriety beyond the reach of cavil.
I suggest there are no circumstances


"beyond the reach of cavil" now. There is a further important consideration to be borne in mind. The Republican Government of Spain is represented at Geneva on the League of Nations. In 1932 a resolution was passed:
It is incumbent upon the Members of the League of Nations not to recognise any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League or the Pact of Paris.
I am not suggesting that that has any great validity with the Prime Minister. I am not going to burden the House by quoting precedents of international law, but the practice of Great Britain has been well established, and there is only one outstanding instance to the contrary, and that was the refusal of the Conservative Government to recognise the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics long after it had been fully established, and years after all opposition to it had been ended. Let me turn from the things that do not appeal to the Prime Minister to something that perhaps does, and that is his own statement. It was made in this House on 31st January last when the right hon. Gentleman said:
Signor Mussolini in the course of the conversations in Rome, expressed the view that it was absurd to call a man who was in possession of three-quarters of the Spanish territory a rebel, but, of course, the reason why we refused to grant belligerent rights to General Franco was not on that ground at all. It was on the ground that this was not a civil war merely, but that the matter was complicated by that intervention of foreign Powers on one side or the other, and it was on that account that we declined to grant belligerent rights.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1939; cols. 77 and 78; Vol. 343.]
Is that true? The right hon. Gentleman did realise then that there was action by intervention by other Powers. But how on earth can it be right to give recognition to the government of General Franco and to withdraw recognition from the government of Republican Spain when it was wrong merely to give belligerent rights? I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me exactly what has happened between 31st January and the present time to change his opinion. It is not a question of whether there has been a conquest of Catalonia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because that is not the reason the Prime Minister gave. It is not a question of the extent of territory. That is the point that Signor Mussolini made.

No, his line was that he could not give belligerent rights because of the intervention of foreign Powers. I do not know whether anyone pretends that that intervention has stopped. It is going on actively to-day. The Italian troops are just as prominent in these territories. Giving belligerent rights is giving rights to two sides in a quarrel, but recognition of one side and the removal of recognition from the other goes much further than the giving of belligerent rights. It is saying what has not been said before, that although there is a friendly Government which is still in existence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—and which still occupies a large part of Spain—Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to make his speech without these interruptions.

Mr. Attlee: My point is that we have no precedent for it. Let me recall that the Republican Government is the Government that has been scrupulous in observing international law, that has pad its debt—I know hon. Members opposite pay great attention to that point—and it is a Government which in response to the request of the Non-intervention Committee removed unilaterally its foreign volunteers, although General Franco did not remove his foreign troops. But it appears that the Prime Minister will always recognise a Government that breaks international law, that outrages every law, human and legal and divine, but any Government that obeys the ordinary international law and the ordinary rules of civilisation is sure to be done down by the Prime Minister.
The next question is as to conditions. The Prime Minister has recognised General Franco's Government unconditionally. I see that the usual apology is made in the Press. It is said hat General Franco would be too proud to submit to conditions, that the Spaniards are a dignified race and that they could not submit to conditions. General Franco has not been too proud to introduce the Moors into Spain. He has not been too proud to have the entry into Barcelona headed by the Italian troops. Lord Baldwin, speaking in this House on 13th February, 1924, was very strong against giving recognition without conditions. He said:


We are running the risk, it seems to me, of giving away, before we begin to negotiate, the only lever we have to obtain not only the things we desire, but which we shall be obliged to have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1924; col. 853, Vol. 169.]
Of course, that was the refusal of recognition of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The conditions were all right there. There are no conditions with regard to General Franco. I ask the Prime Minister to consider what the conditions were that we might rightly have insisted upon. After all this is being done because it is something that is valuable to General Franco. I do not know why we should always give everything and get nothing in return. I put it that first of all there should be assurances of clemency and amnesty to those who are opposing General Franco. What have we got? We have got a mere statement, an alleged statement by General Franco, that no one except law-breakers will be dealt with. But the law is what General Franco likes to make it. He can make it a crime to have taken up arms on behalf of the lawful Government of Spain. That is done. And what is there in the record of General Franco and his supporters that leads us to believe that there will be any clemency? In Barcelona they are rounding up 20,000. Only the other day they machine-gunned 1,000 men who came back from the Republican Army. What happened at Seville? General Quiepo de Lana said:
We have executed 3,000 men in this Province. Our work was a surgical operation. We have struck the word 'pity' out of our dictionary.
The giving of an amnesty, the assurance of clemency is the most vital element in doing what we all want to see done—peace brought to Spain. The leaders of the Spanish Republic have to make their decision, a terrible thing if that decision is merely to face bullets in the firing line or to face bullets from the firing squad in the rear. I ask the Prime Minister to tell us what he has done in exchange for these benefits to try and ensure amnesty and clemency. Has he got any kind of promise or assurance? He is close friends with Signor Mussolini. He is used to calling in Signor Mussolini's influence. Has he done anything to try to get Signor Mussolini's influence brought to bear in this matter of clemency and amnesty? The next question I ask is, has the Prime

Minister done anything with regard to the claims which his own Government has put forward against General Franco since the beginning of hostilities? Twenty-five British ships have been sunk and 120damaged, 45 officers and men have been killed, and the Prime Minister has sent in numerous protests, and those protests have been entirely ineffective. On 1st February General Franco gave his answer. He refused to pay compensation; he refused a commission; he refused to consider compensation even after hostilities had ceased, which, we have been told over and over again, is the appropriate time for sending in a bill for compensation. Has the Prime Minister made any conditions with regard to compensation for British subjects killed and British ships destroyed, or is General Franco's friendship so precious that he will not make any attempt to get any conditions?
Let me take the third condition, the withdrawal of foreign troops from Spain and Spain's independence. We here again have to rely on merely the dictum of General Franco. The Prime Minister did at one time lay very great stress on this question of the withdrawal of foreign troops. It is an important matter for us all to know whether, when we are recognising General Franco, we are recognising a Spanish Government or a puppet Government of Signor Mussolini and Hen-Hitler, because it is the fashion in these days to have puppet Governments. There is one in Manchukuo, and there are others in other parts of China. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister has any assurance that General Franco's Government, when recognised, will not join the axis. It is an important thing for us to know from the point of view of British interests. Has the Prime Minister any guarantee from General Franco with regard to the position of Gibraltar or the Balearic Islands? It looks as if he had given away everything and got nothing in return. The stop press news to-day shows that he has not even got a "Thank you'' from General Franco. General Franco says, "This is a very late come in by Great Britain and France and we will stick to our earlier friends."
The "Times," in its leading article to-day, expresses the hope that the annoyance of the Opposition will not be allowed to obscure from the world the remarkable clearness and continuity of


British policy in Spain. I am going to do my best to help the "Times" in that respect. It is crystal clear that the policy of the Government all through has been to back General Franco to win and to do everything they could to help him. The sham of non-intervention has been really a device to prevent the Spanish Government exercising the rights that it has under international law. They have allowed every kind of breach of international law to be committed and have thrown aside doctrines of maritime law that every statesman in this country for generations has upheld. The right hon. Gentleman is the first Prime Minister to show himself perfectly indifferent to those laws of the sea which were created and upheld by statesmen of this country. He connived at the starving of women and children, he connived at the bombing of open towns and the slaying of men, women and children and non-combatants, and now he is scrambling with indecent haste to try to make friends with the perpetrators. This is not in the interests of democracy. It is not in the interests of the safety of the British Empire. He is thinking all the time of the interests of British capital. What does it matter if Gibraltar is endangered if Rio Tinto Mines pay a dividend? What does it matter about women and children if Spain is made a place safe for autocracy?
Then the Prime Minister put forward his usual hypocritical plea that this is all being done to prevent further suffering and loss of life. I ask why he did not think of that before. What offers of mediation has he ever made? When he was visiting Rome we had a fairly full account of the discussions with Signor Mussolini. It was obvious that throughout, his idea was that Signor Mussolini should be allowed to finish off the war in Spain. Did he ever make any suggestion that there should be joint mediation and appeasement? Never any attempt from this Government. We all deplore the slaughter in Spain, but want effective thing has the Prime Minister done to try to bring it to an end? It would have been ended long ago if he had done what he said he was going to do and make non-intervention effective. By this act he is stabbing in the back the heroic defenders of democracy. There was a time when this country

was universally known as the friend of liberty, the friend of peoples and the enemy of tyrants. It is now being regarded more and more as a nation which will always acquiesce in every kind of tyranny, which always stands in favour of dictatorship.
It is true that in the Dominions, in the United States and throughout the democracies of the world there is, as we say in this Motion, a growing distrust, a complete distrust of this Government as in any way willing to stand by the old traditions of this country. The world sees small country after small country always sacrificed with the acquiescence of this Government. The world sees on every occasion the advocates of brute force and tyranny being sought in friendship by the British Prime Minister. This is not only having a grave effect throughout the world. It is having a grave effect in this country, too. Hon. Members laughed the other day when one of my hon. Friends said that this line of policy that is being followed by the Government is having a serious effect on the morale of our people. Everyone knows that it is true. Everyone knows that it affects the volunteering for service under this Government. The Prime Minister assured us the other day of the determination of this country to standby France, and he was applauded. People would like to stand by France, but, remember, the France that we wish to stand for is not the France of the reactionaries but the France of the great tradition of freedom and democracy, and if in these days you want to get the people of this country rallied, you will have to appeal to them in support of democracy, and not in order to make friends with tyrants and to betray peoples.
We see in this action of the Government a gross betrayal of a friendly Government, a gross betrayal of democracy, the consummation of two and a half years of the hypocritical pretence of non-intervention, and a connivance all the time at aggression, and this is only one step further in the downward march of His Majesty's Government in which at every stage they do not sell but give away the permanent interests of this country. They do not do anything to build up peace or stop war, but merely announce to the whole world that anyone who is out to use force can always be sure that he will have a friend in the British Prime Minister.

4.26 p.m.

The Prime Minister: It must be a long time since the House has listened to such a series of bitter and repeated personal attacks upon an individual as those contained in the speech that we have just heard. I do not pretend to be immune from human weaknesses, and I admit that I felt a certain temptation to think of one or two sharp things to say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, but we are debating a subject of very great importance—the decision by the Government to recognise another Government which has been engaged for a long period of time in bitter strife. The action of the House to-day in agreeing or disagreeing with the view of the Government is going to constitute a fresh precedent for those who come after us, and it does not seem to me that it is in accordance with our dignity, or with the scope of the subject which we are discussing, that it should degenerate into a personal squabble.
I shall try to avoid anything of that kind, but I must say a few words about the right hon. Gentleman's accusation yesterday, which he has repeated to-day, that I had deliberately misled the House in order to avoid a Debate on this subject. I have been a Member of this House for 20 years, and for the greater part of that time I have been a Member of one Government or another. No one with that public record behind him could hope to conceal from the House or from the public the main traits of his character. I have my faults, no doubt, but those who know me best would agree that I am incapable of trying to mislead this House or of shirking a Debate even if the subject of the Debate had been embarrassing to the Government.
I was at a little disadvantage yesterday because I had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise this point. I had seen that M. Daladier had made a statement to the French Chamber. I confess I had not attended very carefully to the exact words. I find myself that it is difficult to trust my memory as to the exact sequence of events which have happened even a short time ago when so many important questions are concentrated in one period. Under the pressure of the right hon. Gentleman's questions, I did my best to recall the sequence in this particular case, and now that I have had an opportunity of refresh-

ing my recollection, I find that my memory was substantially accurate—more accurate, I think, than that of the right hon. Gentleman for he plainly implied, if he did not say so in so many words, that M. Daladier had said in the French Chamber that the British Government had already reached a decision on the recognition of General Franco. The right hon. Gentleman read some of M. Daladier's words to the House this afternoon. If hon. Members attended carefully to what he said, they will, I think, agree with me that his quotation did not bear out that interpretation. I will read it again, however, in order that hon. Members may have it clearly in their minds:
After all, do you think that it was a negligible fact that we were told on 22nd February that the British Government considered that the moment had come—and that we should not let it pass—to recognise the Government of General Franco, certain declarations of General Franco being of a satisfactory nature?
That is not a decision. It is an expression of opinion, and we invited the comments of the French Government upon it. But M. Daladier went on to use some other words which the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to quote. Nevertheless, I think they are germane. He said:
According to the information at our disposal England would be disposed to grant recognition as from next week.
Does not that clearly mean a simple and straightforward explanation of what the right hon. Gentleman sought to describe as a deliberate misleading of the House by myself? [Interruption.] Of course, I cannot expect any fair consideration of this question from the right hon. Gentleman. We had two desires. We did consider that the moment had come when recognition should be afforded to the Government of General Franco, and we wished to keep in the closest harmony with the French Government, and we were not prepared to grant recognition until we were satisfied that we were in agreement with the French, or that the French were in agreement with us on that subject, and were prepared to accord recognition at the same time. We could not have been certain of what the French attitude would be until Friday when they were meeting and, therefore, I was perfectly correct in saying that the final decision could not be taken until Friday had passed, and it was, in fact, taken over the week-end.

Mr. Attlee: The point on which the House wants to have information is whether any decision had been come to by the Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman really tell the House that for the Government to say that if France were willing, next week, or some subsequent week, or at some time there might be recognition, was not coming to a decision?

The Prime Minister: I do say that that is not an effective decision. It is an indication, but not a decision. What I did say to the right hon. Gentleman was that I could not then add to my statement.
We come now to the Motion before the House. It makes three statements. First, it says that the granting of unconditional recognition constitutes a deliberate affront to the legitimate Government of a friendly Power; secondly, that it is a gross breach of international traditions; and, thirdly, that it marks a further stage in a policy which is steadily destroying confidence in the good faith of this country in all democratic countries. As to the last statement, I will only say that I find some difficulty in believing it, seeing that the great sister democracy of France takes exactly the same view, and is taking exactly the same action. But I would like to deal with the first two points in the Motion, and particularly with this statement that what we are doing is a gross breach of international traditions.
We had to deal with this matter not in a partisan or prejudiced manner, but, as far as possible, with judicial impartiality, and only an attitude of that kind would be consistent with the policy which His Majesty's Government have followed throughout in dealing with the Spanish question. The circumstances accompanying the considerations of the question of recognition naturally received exhaustive examination, and it is not as though this were the first occasion upon which this Government or other Governments had had to consider similar questions. Precedents had already been created, and the results of the actions of various Governments have been brought together under review and have formed the subject of pronouncements in standard works on international law. The right hon. Gentleman quoted certain passages from standard authorities on this subject, and although he thinks that matters of international law are of no concern to me, I

may tell him that I also have looked into standard works upon this subject and have extracted a few passages which I propose to read to the House. The first is from "Oppenheim's International Law," a work which was published in 1905, and is, I believe, recognised as being particularly authoritative. It says:
A Government which enjoys the habitual —although not necessarily willing—obedience of the bulk of the population"—
Not, observe, the whole of the population, but the bulk of the population—
with a reasonable expectancy of permanence can be said to represent the State in question and as such to be entitled to recognition.
Then there is this passage, which has some bearing upon the closing portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he asserted that we ought to have asked for various assurances:
In the absence of effective international guarantees for securing just government and proper administration of the law within the various States, it is impossible to insist on the perpetuation of any existing regime by a refusal to recognise its revolutionary successor. Neither is it in the long run practicable to adopt the indirect method of refusal of recognition as a means of compelling the fulfilment of international obligations. The more rational method"—
I do not know whether this will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman.
—" is to grant recognition and then to insist by such means as International Law offers, on the proper fulfilment of its obligations on the part of the recognised government.

Mr. Attlee: I am very well acquainted with that passage, but that is not the passage in which the author deals with the imposing of conditions. He is dealing there with the question of whether there is a transfer to the new State of the obligations of the old one—an entirely different point.

The Prime Minister: The language is perfectly clear, and it cannot be argued away by the right hon. Gentleman saying that it means something quite different.

Mr. Attlee: I am not trying to argue it away. I am only telling the right hon. Gentleman that it does not relate to the particular point which I put. I have the relevant quotation on that very point, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants it he can have it.

The Prime Minister: I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that every quotation which I


give to the House is entirely irrelevant. I go on to the next authority "Hall's International Law" from which the right hon. Gentleman has already quoted. It says:
''For international purposes the continuance or the recall of authority is judged of solely upon the external facts of the case; so long as a person or body of persons are indisputably in possession of the required power, foreign States treat with them as the organ of the State; so soon as they cease to be the actual organ, foreign States cease dealing with them; and it is usual if the change is unquestionably final, to open relations with their successors independently of whether it has been effected constitutionally.
It is gratifying to me that two, at any rate, of the extracts which I wish to read to the House, come from authorities already quoted, and therefore recognised as authorities, by the right hon. Gentleman. The next one I have is Sir William Harcourt, who, in 1863, wrote a number of letters to the "Times" over the well-known signature "Historicus." And he said in an interesting passage:
On the other hand, if persons who once owned the relation of subjects have been able, either by force of arms or otherwise, to divest themselves, in a final and permanent manner, of the status of subjects, then diplomatic transactions with such persons afford no justifiable ground of offence to their former Sovereign nor can they be regarded as a breach of neutrality or friendship.
I think that is a direct contradiction of the first part of the Motion. The same writer quotes Lord Liverpool, who had been Prime Minister, on the recognition of the South American Republics when they revolted against Spain:
The question ought to be—was the contest going on? He, for one, could not reconcile it to his mind to take any such steps so long as the struggle in arms continued undecided. And while he made that declaration he meant that it should be a bona fide contest.
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that International Law is not a concern of the Government, but that will show that we are not without precedents. From 1873 to 1875 Spain was the scene of disturbances, which began with the abdication of King Amadeo on 12th February, 1873, and ended with the restoration of the monarchy under Don Alfonso in 1875. In 1874 His Majesty's Government formally recognised the Republican Government which had been formed under Marshal Serrano, and in February, 1875, when that Government was overthrown and replaced by Don Alfonso, they formally recognised Don

Alfonso. Lord Derby at that time explained the reasons for their action in the case as follows:
Her Majesty's Government have not departed from the usual manner of proceeding… We delayed a little in the first instance because, as your Lordships will remember, the government of Marshal Serrano was one which did not rest on any popular basis, but was created by a military pronunciamiento, and it was natural that we should wait until we saw that it was a Government in a position—I will not say to be permanent, for it is very difficult to say what Government will be permanent in Spain as Spain now is—but in a position in which it could hold its own, and in which it should be recognised de facto by the great majority of the people. We thought that the Government of Marshal Serrano fulfilled that condition. It was undoubtedly recognised de facto over nearly the whole of Spain with the exception of the Provinces in which the Carlist war was then, and still is, going on.

Mr. Attlee: Is not that always quoted by international lawyers as showing the disadvantage of precipitate action?

The Prime Minister: I have said that the right hon. Gentleman would find fault with all my quotations. I am afraid I shall not be able to satisfy him whatever I say.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister, but he is dealing with an important question of International Law, and I am sure he will not desire to mislead the House. Is it not the fact that the Government of Marshal Serrano fell six months after the time we recognised it, and that, in fact, it was a premature recognition?

The Prime Minister: I am reading what Lord Derby said were the reasons why they recognised the Government of Marshal Serrano, and why they recognised the government which followed:
As we had acted in the case of Marshal Serrano's government, so also we have acted in the case of that of King Alfonso. We found the government of King Alfonso to be accepted by the country, as that of Marshal Serrano had been, over all other parts of Spain except those which the Carlists occupy. We were in no particular or precipitate haste to give a formal sanction to that government; but we satisfied ourselves that it was de facto established, and we believe that it has at least as good a chance of permanence as any government that might take its place. Where revolutions are so frequent as they are in Spain, I do not think it would be a desirable thing for it to be supposed that by recognising a de facto government in Spain we commit ourselves to any expression of opinion upon its merits, or to anticipations as to the future. We recognised the government of King


Alfonso as we recognised the government of Marshal Serrano because it appeared to us to be that which, as a fact, the Spanish people acknowledged and obeyed.
I put it to the House that the effect of these various quotations and precedents is that the questions which the Government have to decide are two questions of fact. They are: first, did General Franco after the fall of Barcelona and after he had got possession of Catalonia put himself into a position which one might call a position of reasonable expectancy of permanence and superiority? On the other hand, had the Republican Government of Spain any title any longer to be considered the legal government of the country? The answers to these questions, I think, are pretty plain. Not only is General Franco in possession of the major part of the territory—I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that the possession of Catalonia made practically no difference, although it seems to me that it was just that which made the difference——

Mr. Attlee: I did not say that it made no difference in that respect. I only said that the possession or non-possession of Catalonia made no difference to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, which was about whether there was foreign intervention or not.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He was criticising my observation that General Franco is now in possession of the greater part of Spain, and said why did I not say that before the fall of Barcelona when it was still in the possession of the Republican Government. One has to remember what are the chances of a prolonged resistance by the Republican Government to General Franco in their present circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were still in effective possession of something like one-third of the area of Spain. The point we have to consider, and I put it to the House, is, can they command a sufficiency of munitions or even of food to be able to carry on the struggle for any prolonged period with any reasonable chance of ultimate success? I do not think there can be two answers to any such questions. As for the Republican Government, nobody can say how much of it remains or where it can be found.

The President is no longer in Spain: indeed, he has resigned. Some of the ministers are in France, some are in Spain, and many, I believe, of Dr. Negrin's own ministers and military advisers are urging upon him a cessation of hostilities. It is doubtful whether the Government can be considered a legal Power. What is the authority of the Cabinet in the absence of the President and in the impossibility of calling together the Cortes? The Diplomatic Corps is accredited to the head of the State, and where the head of the State legally resides that is where they should perform their mission. How can they perform their mission when the head of the State is no longer in Spain? It is impossible for the Cortes to be assembled in order to elect a successor according to the constitution. I say that so far from our action having been a gross breach of international tradition, it would have been such a breach if we had refused to recognise General Franco in present circumstances.
Let me say a word on the question of expediency. Of course, expediency does not arise until the right exists, and I think that what I have said has established the right of General Franco's Government. Therefore, I will turn to consider the question of expediency. I wonder what exactly the right hon. Gentleman and his friends think would be gained by a refusal of recognition. He said that we have stabbed in the back a friendly Power. Do they mean by that that if we had refused recognition this friendly Power would have gone on fighting? I cannot get an answer to that question. Would it be an encouragement to the Republican Government to go on prolonging their resistance? If so, I say this, that it would be contrary to all the dictates of humanity and could not affect the ultimate result. Anybody who has heard recently any accurate and reliable accounts of the conditions prevailing in Madrid to-day cannot surely for one moment want that state of affairs to be prolonged any further than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Cocks: There is such a thing as honour.

The Prime Minister: The late Sir John Falstaff has some remarks about honour which may be in the minds of the people in Madrid.
To withhold recognition from General Franco could not help the Republican Government or the people in Madrid. What it would do would be to embitter our relations with the new Government of Spain and to destroy any influence which we may hope to have with that Government. The right hon. Gentleman did not say much about it but he alluded once again to a matter of which he has spoken before, namely, his fears that British interests, by which, of course, he does not mean to suggest that he is thinking of British property, or anything so sordid as that, but British strategic interests might be jeopardised by the accession of General Franco to authority in Spain. If he does think that, is he going to suggest that it would be a good thing to drive General Franco into feelings of hostility to this country, to make him feel that we have imposed a humiliation upon him or done him an injustice? Should we not, on the contrary, when his right to recognition according to all precedents had been established, refuse to withhold from him what is clearly his due under international traditions? Might we not, by establishing friendly relations with him, secure that British interests shall not be jeopardised by anything which happens hereafter?
The right hon. Gentleman put forward again various conditions which he would have us exact from General Franco before we grant him recognition. I wish sometimes that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would face up to realities. We know perfectly well that it is quite impossible for us to exact such conditions unless we are prepared to go to war to enforce them. We could not exact such conditions. What we could do was to obtain assurances while at the same time granting recognition unconditionally. We have had repeated assurances, upon all those points which were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, from General Franco and his Government over a period which may now be measured by years. But there was one point on which we felt so particularly concerned that we thought it was necessary to ask General Franco once again to repeat the assurances he had already given us, and that was on the question of reprisals.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite speak with great positive ness and assurance about massacres and murders which they allege to have been committed

by General Franco's forces, but they never say anything about similar incidents on the other side. I am afraid that if ever the whole history of this prolonged struggle comes to be recorded accurately, it will not be found that those incidents have been confined to one side or the other. Bitter feelings were naturally aroused in the minds of those who heard terrible stories of what was done to those who were dear to them when they were in the power of those who were then their enemies. It would not be reasonable to ask General Franco to grant beforehand a complete amnesty which would include the men who had been guilty of such horrible crimes. It would not be reasonable to ask for that, but we did think it would be reasonable to urge on him that there should be no general reprisals, no reprisals for what could be described as strictly political offences. We have had those assurances. I will read to the House a telegram which was sent in answer to our inquiries. I quite anticipate that we shall have the usual jeers at the terms of this telegram; nevertheless, I am going to read it. It is right to state to the House what General Franco has committed himself to in response to our latest inquiries. The telegram is dated the 22nd of this month, and it reads:
National Spain has won the war, and it is therefore incumbent on the vanquished to surrender unconditionally. The patriotism, chivalry and generosity of the Caudillo, of which he has given so many examples in the liberated regions, and likewise the spirit of equity and justice that inspires all the National Government's actions, constitute a firm guarantee for all Spaniards who are not criminals. The courts of justice, applying the established laws and procedure promulgated before 16th July, 1936"— 
The right hon. Gentleman opposite suggested that General Franco would make new laws, but he will observe that General Franco has committed himself to the laws promulgated before July, 1936—
are restricted to bringing to judgment, within the framework of those laws, the authors of crime. Spain is not disposed to accept any foreign intervention which may impair her dignity or infringe her sovereignty.
I ask hon. Members to note those words. I do not need to read the last passage of the telegram, because it only says that if the Red leaders prolong their resistance and sacrifice more lives, it will be their responsibility.
We are not, in the decision to which we have come, creating a new precedent. Already 19 other Governments have recognised the Government of General Franco. If we had refrained from doing so, I do not know how long it would have been before we should have found ourselves alone. The position of France is exactly the same as our own. I say to the House that the recognition is really only a formal act which brings the relations between this country and General Franco's Government into relationship with reality. What is wanted now is a cessation of hostilities. Anything that the British Government could do to help to bring about an armistice, during which some discussions could take place between representatives on the two sides, we should gladly do. I hope that not many days will pass before we hear that such an armistice has been agreed to. I hope that once the fighting has come to an end, all Spaniards may unite to repair the destruction that has taken place and heal the wounds that have been inflicted, and together build up a prosperous and happy country which will be worthy of their own glorious past.

5.8 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: The Prime Minister began his speech with an eloquent reference to the importance of this Debate, and he said that it ought not to degenerate into a personal squabble; but he went on to refer to the first charge which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had brought against him in language which showed that, although he dissented from the charge, he appreciated its gravity. Although I do not propose to spend very long upon it, I must tell the House frankly that I was not impressed by the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Gentleman. For my part, I do not accuse, and I am not sure that the Leader of the Opposition accused, the Prime Minister of shirking a Debate in the sense in which the Prime Minister used that phrase. He took a very high line. He said that he was a man whom we all knew to have courage and ability—and I have never denied that—and that we had accused him of shirking a Debate.

The Prime Minister: I said that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition accused me.

Mr. Attlee: I did not say that the Prime Minister shirked a Debate; I said that he took action in order to avoid a Debate in the House.

Sir A. Sinclair: It was exactly that distinction which occurred to me. It is clear that the Prime Minister did not want to shirk a Debate. He was willing to answer in this House for the policy when he thought it an appropriate time, but he wanted to postpone it to a convenient date, and until it was too late for the House to alter the course of events.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Baronet will remember that I was asked more than once whether I would undertake that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the question before a decision was taken. I refused to give any such undertaking.

Sir A. Sinclair: The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to say that, but my contention is that, in fact, an effective decision had been taken by the Cabinet before the Leader of the Opposition put his question on Thursday last. It seems to me that the Prime Minister is in this dilemma—either an effective decision had been taken before the Leader of the Opposition put his question, in which case an announcement ought to have been made and we ought to have had a Debate; or the decision was taken not by the Cabinet, but by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on their own responsibility. It seems to me that the correct answer to the question must be that an effective decision to recognise General Franco had been taken by the Cabinet before the Leader of the Opposition asked his question on Thursday last, but that the Cabinet had left it to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to decide when effect should be given to that decision. In those circumstances I think we ought to have been told before the French Chamber was told what was the decision of the Cabinet. Monsieur Daladier said perfectly clearly, and indeed the Prime Minister read out the words,
that the British Government considered that the moment had come, and that we should not let it pass, to recognise the Government of General Franco.
It is that information which I think, we ought to have had in reply to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday last. We ought to have had a Debate then, or even on Friday.


The Prime Minister seems to me to have acted in this case, as he and the Government have acted in other cases within the last few months, as though it was his deliberate policy to deprive Parliament of an opportunity of discussion until the time had passed when such a discussion could possibly influence events.
I did feel inclined to argue with the Prime Minister about his interpretation of international law, on the question of withdrawing recognition from the Spanish Government and according it to General Franco and his Government. For my part, I cannot agree with the Prime Minister that this action is in accordance with the best precedents. I also have studied the precedents; certainly some of the authorities to whom he has referred, and also other authorities, such as Hall and Professor McNair. But it seems to me that this is not really a question which can be decided or has been decided by such criteria. The decision which the Government have taken is an act of policy, and it must be presumed to have been taken with an eye to the preservation of the interests of this country—I use the phrase "interests of this country" in its widest and not merely in its material sense—and also of those of the people of Spain.
The truth—and I think we are all aware of it from speeches that have been made by the Government and their supporters and by inspired articles in the Press—of the reason behind the Government's decision is that the Government believe that the best hope of serving the interests of this country, and, I have no doubt, of the Spanish people and of peace, is to get quickly into the confidence of General Franco. They believe that so long as the war lasts General Franco depends upon Germany and Italy for supplies of troops and war material, and that once the war comes to an end he will depend upon this country and upon France for supplies of money and for the capital which he re-quires to rehabilitate the economic life of Spain; and they therefore think that if they can make friends with him quickly now, they will be able to influence his policy. In pursuance of that policy, I expect that we shall soon have a demand for extending credits to General Franco's Government in Spain. I hope that no such demand will be made upon Parliament. Already there is a feeling in this country that we are doing too much for

people of other countries and not enough for our own people. I regret the growth of that feeling, because, as a result of the policy of this Government, floods of refugees are pouring over Europe, from Czecho-Slovakia, from Spain, from Germany, from Austria, and it is a moral obligation upon this country, which I recognise and which I have avowed in the country, to do something to help those refugees. But we have plenty of deserving objects for the expenditure of British capital, and I hope there will be no proposal that we should invest our capital in bolstering up General Franco's régime in Spain.
Nor do I believe that it would in the least degree affect the policy of a proud nation like Spain. There is, we must recognise, fundamental agreement between the policy and outlook of General Franco on the one hand and those of Italy and Germany on the other hand, and let us not under-estimate the hold which Germany has already obtained upon the policy of General Franco and upon those forces on whose support General Franco mainly relies. In so far as General Franco has any mass support in the towns and cities of Spain, it comes from the Phalange party. The doctrines and principles of the Phalange party are closely in accord with those of the National Socialist party in Germany. They exchange instructors; that is to say, men and women of the Phalange party go to Germany to be instructed, and they receive German instructors from Germany to instruct the Phalange party; and Germany has, not only indirectly through the influence of its advisers and technicians in various departments of the economic life of Spain, but also directly through its hold upon the Phalange, an opportunity of exerting decisive influence upon the policy of General Franco's Government. Nor let us forget that it is a part of the policy of the declared statement of policy of the Phalange to recover Gibraltar from the British Empire. I believe that, like many sixteenth and seventeenth century British politicians, General Franco will accept whatever financial and economic assistance we are prepared to give him, and that, unlike this Government, General Franco will remain faithful to his own principles and his own friends.
I would ask, Why are no conditions attached to this recognition? It is not the


case that there is no precedent or even that there are not strong precedents and respectable authorities for imposing conditions, in the interests both of our own country and of the people of Spain, or in the interests of the peace of Europe, upon General Franco's Government in return for recognition. I could quote many authorities and precedents. The only possible excuse, therefore, for not imposing conditions is because the Government's policy has rendered them powerless to impose them, except, as the Prime Minister said, by going to war. But the Prime Minister says that we must face realities, and he says that that is the reality, that we can only impose these conditions by going to war. Well, we have frequently in this House, and especially in these Debates on foreign affairs, to face realities, and the hardest realities that we have to face are the consequences of the Government's foreign policy. But, as a matter of fact, we have in our possession very strong bargaining factors, and there are certainly some points in which we ought to insist upon conditions.
Surely the first condition upon which we ought to insist is the withdrawal of foreign troops from Spain. Italy and Germany will impose conditions upon General Franco before they consent to withdraw their troops from Spain. They have started to already. Hon. Members must have read translations of Signor Gayda's article on the necessity for a political victory as well as a military victory, and for clearing up Red troops in contiguous territories. The Government may answer that that article has been officially disavowed in Rome, but since that article was written the "Relazioni Internazionali," which is recognised to have official sources of inspiration on foreign affairs, has declared in its issue of 19th February, only a few days ago:
Italian legionaries will go where the common interests of Italy and Spain demand their presence.
Indeed, we have seen the power of the independent authority which the Italian troops exercise in Spain when, while our own cruiser, His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire," was lying in Port Mahon, the Italian planes came over and bombed the people of Port Mahon when their own Spanish commander was actually on the

cruiser; and, finally, we have seen the tribute which General Franco has paid to them by placing them at the head of his forces in the triumphal march through Barcelona.
In the Government's opinion it was indefensible, yesterday at any rate—perhaps it is still to-day; I should like to be told at the conclusion of this Debate—to accord to General Franco belligerent rights. What is the Government's policy on that matter if the war continues? My own view is—as a matter of fact I have expressed it in this House—that but for one circumstance we ought to have accorded belligerent rights to General Franco. I have always held that view, that he was entitled to it, and has been entitled to it for a very long time, but for one circumstance; but that circumstance was a very important one. That circumstance was that he relied largely on foreign support for the maintenance of his position. That was the Government's opinion, yet while reliance upon foreign support and the presence of German and Italian troops with General Franco's forces was considered by the Government themselves to be an insuperable obstacle to the recognition of General Franco's belligerent rights, they now constitute no obstacle to the recognition of his sovereignty over the whole of Spain.
I also consider that there should have been a further condition, to prevent reprisals. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has said that dreadful things have happened under General Franco's régime, but that they are matched by equally dreadful things that have happened under the Republican régime. The Prime Minister there, I think, leaves out one very important factor—the time factor. It is quite true that at the beginning of the revolution terrible things did happen in Republican Spain. The Republican Government had been attacked by the very generals who were sworn to defend it, and by the Regular Army, and they did what was inevitable. They armed anyone who would defend the State against the rebellion. The result of that was that arms fell into the hands among others of the worst elements in the population, and certainly in those early days terrible things did happen. But the history of the struggle has shown that the Republican Government set themselves to recover control over the government of Spain, that they did re-


cover control, and that they did restore the guarantees of law and liberty to their citizens; and from innumerable people who have come back from Republican Spain and talked to me about their experiences there, I have learned how well the Republican Government succeeded in restoring those guarantees.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that applies to the murder of the Bishop of Teruel only a fortnight ago, and of 42 officers and hostages?

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has been good enough to make it clear that this occurred only a fortnight ago The Prime Minister has just told us that the difficulties of the Republican Government are such, that the Government are so spread about all over the country, that it is very doubtful whether there is an effective Government to recognise. If that is true, it is perfectly clear that there must be very great difficulties indeed, at a time of crisis like this, in maintaining their authority in every part of Spain. The hon. and gallant Member does not even tell me in what part of Spain the bishop was murdered.

Sir H. Croft: He was murdered on the borders of the frontier, and 42 officers and leading hostages were also murdered at the same time. Further, Colonel Rey d'Harcourt, to whom it was sworn that his life would be saved if he surrendered, was also foully murdered.

Miss Wilkinson: There is no proof of that.

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Lady says there is no proof of the hon. and gallant Member's assertion, and she is obviously quite right. But I am not taking that point; I would prefer to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the assumption that his story is true, and I would say that in these circumstances, when soldiers are in a state of desperation, when the control of military authority is relaxed, the confusion of a rout, is exactly the time when these terrible events, which all of us must deeply deplore, may take place. All I am saying is that when the Republican Government have been in a position to exercise their authority they have established and maintained guarantees of law and liberty

for the people under their jurisdiction. I am sorry to say that, in spite of General Franco's success in extending his power and authority, the actions of his supporters have been very different and that the most terrible atrocities are now being committed by airmen under his orders. There have been two speeches by ladies whose names are given, and the Duke of Atholl has written to the newspapers saying he has heard—[Laughter.] Why the Prime Minister should laugh I do not know.

The Prime Minister: Because of the evidence.

Sir A. Sinclair: The Prime Minister laughs when I am only at the beginning of the story and before he has heard the evidence. He laughs at the name of the Duke of Atholl, who is a respectable member of his own party. Why should he think that the Duke of Atholl should be laughed out of court before I have had the chance of giving the evidence on which he bases his claim? His correspondent is a lady whom he knows and who has been in Spain. She says what the other two ladies have said—I wish the Prime Minister would listen. He asked for the evidence and he might listen to it. These two ladies and the Duke of Atholl's correspondent say that General Franco's airmen have dropped boxes of chocolates in the streets of Spanish towns, and that when children have picked them up they have exploded in their faces and blown their hands off. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is amused. I hope his constituents will visit their censure upon him at the next election.

Mr. Pickthorn: Since the right hon. Baronet objects to my smiling, which is, after all, the most agreeable exercise to be taken while listening to a speech, I may perhaps quote to him the words of Oliver Cromwell on a famous occasion:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
I beseech the right hon. Baronet, who represents the height of morality and Caithness, to think it possible that it is he and not the other things at which we are laughing.

Sir A. Sinclair: All I say is that I hope the hon. Member's constituents will read my speech and form their own conclusions. I have quoted these two ladies


who have made public speeches, and who have served humanity by going out to Spain and, in conditions of danger and hardship, have served the suffering people. I do not see why the hon. Member for Cambridge University should come here and laugh at the evidence which these ladies have given to the public in London. It was a disgraceful action on the hon. Member's part.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Has it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that if a chocolate box is dropped from an aeroplane it is hardly likely that it would remain intact, and that, if it did, it is not likely that it would go off in the hands of children?

Sir A. Sinclair: I prefer against the hon. Member's hypothetical reasoning the actual statements of two ladies who have been to Spain, have worked there and have come back here, and have told these stories in public and the statement of the Duke of Atholl, who is a man of honour, which he has made in a letter to the public Press. There is my evidence, and I stand by it.
I, therefore, say that the Prime Minister was unhappily guided when he referred to the dreadful acts of Republicans on the one hand, and of General Franco's supporters, on the other, as if they were on a par. They are not. Wherever the Republican Government have managed to establish their authority they have maintained guarantees for law and order which General Franco has conspicuously failed to maintain. Further to that, it is relevant to consider the record of these two Governments in regard to the death penalty. The Republican Government agreed last September to abolish the death penalty if General Franco and his Government would agree to do the same, but General Franco refused. In spite of his refusal, the Republican Government did abolish the death penalty. General Franco has never done so. On the contrary, it is well known that he has announced that he has 2,000,000 names on a dossier, and that among the people who were shot when he entered Barcelona was a judge who had been carrying out his functions under the Republican Government. The Prime Minister says that it would not be reasonable to ask for a complete amnesty. It would have been a reasonable and practicable proposal to

make to General Franco that he should have made a declaration of a general amnesty, that he should have been allowed to exempt from that amnesty certain individuals whom he regarded as criminals, and that a safe conduct should have been given to those individuals so that they could have escaped from the country in His Majesty's ships or in some other way.
There is a third condition which I consider the Prime Minister should have made before he afforded this recognition. He should have ensured that compensation would be available for British ships which have suffered so severely at General Franco's hands. A year ago the British Agent at Burgos declared that:
The time has come to let it be known once and for all that His Majesty's Government cannot continue to deal with these attacks solely by protests and claims for compensation.
That declaration was only words, for no action followed, and in recent months the attacks on British ships outside the three-mile limit have been as frequent as they were a year ago. I need only mention the examples of the "Stanbrook," the "Stangrove" and the "Mariongo." These ships have kept going our export trade with Spain in circumstances of difficulty, hardship and danger. They have brought to us 87 per cent. of the mercury which we need for our rearmament programme. Why have the Government not taken this opportunity of recognising General Franco to obtain compensation for the ship owners and for the seamen who have been killed and wounded? The Prime Minister says that 19 other countries have recognised General Franco, including, of course, Germany and Italy, who have recognised him all along. We have a greater responsibility than most of the other countries. Our interests are very closely intertwined with those of Spain. As for France, we know from M. Daladier's speech that the policy of France has been largely influenced by the pressure which the Prime Minister has brought to bear in favour of recognition.
The Prime Minister has offered to the House to-day a defence of the recognition of General Franco which on one condition is logically unassailable. That condition is that you can accept his premises. The bomb-proof shelter in which the Government hide themselves for this Debate


would be logically proof against the direct hits of the Opposition if it did not lie in the shifting sands of the Government's unprincipled foreign policy. It is not much more than a month since the Prime Minister in Rome was raising his glass to drink to the health of the King of Italy as Emperor of Abyssinia. What else could he have done? He was the guest of the Italian Government. Does anybody suppose that he would have refused to perform such a courtesy? He must, indeed, have been a little embarrassed by the recollection of his own speech in Glasgow, reported in the "Scotsman" of 15th October, 1935, in which he said:
The choice before us is whether we shall make a last effort at Geneva for peace and security or whether by a cowardly surrender we would break the promises we have made and hold ourselves up to the shame of our children and our children's children.
But the sands of the Government's policy had shifted, and in that situation what else could the Prime Minister do but drink to the health of the King of Italy as Emperor of Abyssinia? We are told that it is useless to mouth phrases about supporting the League of Nations and collective security for they no longer have any meaning, and that in the present situation the only hope lies in ignoring the League of Nations and in abandoning ourselves to power politics. Have the Government forgotten the declaration in their General Election manifesto that
Our attitude to the League is dictated by the conviction that collective security by collective action can alone save us from a return to the old system that resulted in the Great War.
We have not forgotten that they won their great majority at the last General Election on that declaration of a policy of loyalty to the League of Nations and of steady and collective resistance to unprovoked aggression. They said in their manifesto:
The League of Nations will remain as heretofore the keystone of British foreign policy
But within four weeks they had sent the present Home Secretary, who was then Foreign Secretary, to Paris where, in the Hoare-Laval negotiations, he dealt the League of Nations a blow from which it has never recovered. Then they had 50 nations ranged in opposition to aggression and in a struggle to assert the authority of the League of Nations, but they lacked the faith and the moral

energy to give the world effective leadership in support of the principles of the Covenant.
Since then the Government's policy has steadily undermined the authority of the League, until they ask now who can blame them if they pursue a policy of power politics? Less than a year ago they were telling us that the independence of Austria was an object of British policy, but, when Austria was invaded by German armies, the forces of law and order in the world had been scattered, and they were indignant if anybody reproached them for failing to maintain the independence of that country. In the circumstances as they then existed, what else could they have done? So again last September. The Government spokesmen are very sensitive about discussing anything that happened before Munich. Their case rests on Munich and what happened there. They challenge the Opposition to say what they would have done if they had been at Munich. They came into power after the election of 1935 with huge majorities in both Houses of Parliament. There were 50 nations ranged in opposition to aggression and resolved to maintain the authority of the League. They were like the heir to a great fortune who, after a few short years of unprincipled dissipation, finds himself faced with the alternatives of bankruptcy or suicide, and the credit they claim is for not choosing suicide.
So now in Spain: having failed to insist upon making non-intervention effective, having allowed the farce of the Nonintervention Committee to drag on, having consented to the destruction of British ships and the killing of British seamen, and the establishment of the precedent of an aerial blockade by a rebel authority to which they would not even grant belligerent rights—having also objected to granting belligerent rights on the ground that the rebel authority was supported by foreign troops—they now find themselves in the position of having to withdraw recognition from the constitutional and democratic Government of Spain which has punctually fulfilled all its obligations to this country, which is maintaining law and order in the territory which it now effectively governs, which, to the satisfaction of the League of Nations, has sent out of the country all the foreigners who were supporting it, and have recognised General Franco, who


could not have obtained his present power without that German and Italian aid which he himself has described as indispensable and for which he has pledged his eternal gratitude.
I do not believe that if a firm line had been taken earlier against German and Italian intervention in Spain it would have involved war. I do not believe that Germany and Italy would have dared to resent any action which we thought necessary to preserve British ships and the lives of British sailors from the attacks of General Franco's airmen provided the use of force had been rigorously restricted to what was necessary to achieve that object. Nor do I believe that the restoration to the Spanish Government of the opportunity which, according to the normal practice, it would have had of buying arms, would have resulted inward. I am not sure that the mere threat of it would not have stopped Italian and German intervention. But again the Government are triumphantly confronting Parliament with the choice between bankruptcy and suicide. A friendly Government is fighting with its back to the wall. The prolongation of resistance would appear to be useless, and would only inflict further suffering on the Spanish people. The case is that nothing short of active intervention by France and Britain would now suffice to give the Republican Government victory, and so the Government call upon Parliament to allow them to withdraw recognition from the constitutionally-chosen Government of Spain and to give it to the insurgent general. Another humiliation for Britain. Another triumph for the dictatorships over the democracies.
The Prime Minister tells us that General Franco has issued public statements asserting the determination of himself and his Government to ensure the traditional independence of Spain. What else could a man do who aspires to the Government of a great and proud country? Who has ever heard of a leader who dared to admit that his object was to bring his country into dependence upon some foreign country? I fully and frankly accept General Franco's assurances that he is anxious to get rid of German and Italian troops the moment he feels he can spare them, but those who accept his statement must admit that the fact is that he cannot spare them, because he needs them to maintain his authority, and the Govern-

ment are now asking us to extend de jure recognition to a Spanish Government which cannot even maintain its de facto authority without the help of foreign troops.
Every concession to the aggressor has both strengthened the dictatorships and whetted their appetites. Austria and Czecho-Slovakia—what has happened there has resulted in 45 to 50 divisions being available for use by the German dictators on any front where they may intend to use them. We had the Anglo-Italian Agreement last year. Two things in it gave the Government great satisfaction. One was that the Italians had promised to reduce their troops in Libya by 1,000 a week—Libya, where they threaten not only French Tunis but Egypt, too; and now we know, even by the figures which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given us, that the numbers are back to what they were before the Anglo-Italian Agreement was signed; and, as a matter of fact, the information which I have leads me to suppose that the numbers of troops are even larger than the Under-Secretary has admitted. The other thing in the Agreement on which the Government prided themselves was recognition of the status quo in the Mediterranean. Italy would do nothing to disturb the status quo in the Mediterranean, but a few weeks later the Italian Chamber was ringing with the cries of "Corsica—Tunis—Nice." The tension in the Mediterranean is greater now than it was a year ago when the Prime Minister took over the control of foreign affairs.
Munich was followed by the resumption of German naval activity, the building up of submarines to a strength equal to ours and the arming of cruisers with 8-inch guns, the cruisers being all ready for those 8-inch guns the moment the German Government gave our Government notification in December that they were going to arm them. There are Italian troops and airmen in the Balearic Islands; German aerodromes on the frontiers of Spain from which they can threaten the munition factories of France in the south west of that country; guns on the Straits of Gibraltar and protecting the air ports in the Balearic Islands; submarine bases all round the coast of Spain. The Government's policy has strengthened the dictatorships, weakened the democracies, and betrayed one after


another those countries that trusted us, and their epitaph will be, "We have eaten dirt in vain."

5.52 p.m.

Sir H. Croft: I am sure that I shall be forgiven if I do not attempt to cover the whole range of foreign politics during the last five or six years, but confine myself to the Motion which is on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) made great play in his speech with the fact that His Majesty's Government had made no conditions with General Franco. I am surprised that one with his experience should imagine that the position was one in which any country could make conditions with a victorious Power in a country where there had been civil war, a civil war which looks like coming to a conclusion. Surely it is obvious that it is impossible for anyone to lay any conditions upon General Franco. Therefore, it is not a question of conditions. The position is that, having recognised him, our Government can for the first time approach him on terms of equality and use its influence to try to secure the best possible results from this change.
I think the right hon. Gentleman was speaking without any great authority in suggesting that the Falangists in Spain were, in fact, going to control the situation. That is not necessarily true at all. They have taken a great part in events there, but I believe the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in imagining that any Fascist system can be imposed upon the Spanish people. They are far too proud, independent and free ever to submit, at least for any length of time, to the kind of policy which the right hon. Gentleman dreads may prevail in Spain. I think they are much more likely to go back to the old traditional form of government they had before they unwisely and rashly experimented in forms of democracy in their later years, and we shall find emerging in Spain something very similar to the old government, a people under a monarchy. If the monarchy is restored in Spain it will make a very great deal of difference to the fears of the right hon. Gentleman regarding a sole and absolute dictator. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be very much alarmed at the idea that any credits might hereafter be granted to Spain. I do not

think that was one of the conditions he referred to. He has at various times painted a tragic picture of the state of affairs in Spain. He is very humanitarian in his views when it is a question of assisting any country—unless the unfortunate population are not being governed by his own particular friends. Then he hardens his heart and says nothing must be done. I hope, however, that we shall not rule out altogether the possibility of assisting, in conjunction with the United States, France and the other great democracies, to get that unhappy country once more established on the road to commerce and success.
He seemed to think we could have made conditions regarding the treatment of the population, that General Franco might have been asked to abolish the death penalty. He said the death penalty had been abolished by the Republican Government. I do not want to be facetious on such a serious subject, but I wonder whether there were many more people who could be described as bourgeois or leaders in Republican Spain who could have suffered the death penalty; because, tragic though it is, I think it is now generally admitted that something like 400,000 civilians who had taken no part in the war have been foully done to death. That presents a difficulty, because we must not ignore the fact that the memory of it is still very fresh in Spanish hearts.
While I hope His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power, as I believe they have done, to show the Generalissimo that he would win the good will of all the civilised world if he could limit his policy of justice to those who had committed definite crimes, it must be admitted—although we hear it said sometimes that it has been a case of "six of one and half a dozen of the other''—that under General Franco's Government there has been no deliberate murder of women and children. It may be that in the heat of battle troops have been shot. That happens sometimes in war, and the Spanish are a fierce fighting people; but in all the studies I have made I can find no evidence that there has been any deliberate attempt to murder women and children, and if we want the friendship of Spain it is a grave mistake to suggest that there has been that form of criminal activity in the past.

Sir A. Sinclair: Let say that there are a great many instances, well authenticated by responsible journalists, of towns and villages being bombed and of the fleeing population being pursued by airmen with machine guns. Further, there was the report of the British Military Mission.

Sir H. Croft: We all hope that the Spanish war is coming to an end, and the facts will all very soon be within the knowledge of the world. It will not be a matter of assertion by journalists here and there. It is quite true that towns and villages have been bombed—undoubtedly; but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that wherever there has been bombing it has been the supreme object of the generalissimo not to destroy the town or village which he would occupy shortly afterwards, unless there was a supreme military need to do so. In practically every case where it happened it will be found that there was a railway there, or cross roads, or docks or a munitions factory or an aerodrome. But these facts will all be known in a short time, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman and I should go out to Spain together and take a look over the country.

Sir A. Sinclair: The facts are known now. There was the report of the British Military Mission which declared that such instances had occurred.

Sir H. Croft: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is right that certain towns and villages have been bombed, but with regard to his further point, I think there is good evidence to show that there has been no deliberate machine-gunning of civilians on the roads.

Colonel Wedgwood: Have you read the report?

Sir H. Croft: Yes. I submit that those who wrote the report were not on the spot, and that there is no definite evidence that there has been a deliberate attempt to slaughter civilians on the roads. I do not want to detain the House more than a very few moments, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the French general who met the commander of the Spanish division which first arrived at the frontier and who definitely offered him his appreciation and said that the world would appreciate the fact that there

had been no machine-gunning of the retreating army in rout and of the civilians who were mixed up with it.
I met to-day a very distinguished gentleman who has just returned from Spain. He went exactly behind the retreating army and the pursuing force of General Franco and he said that the most significant fact was that there were very few signs of disaster. He said that it was evident that the retreating army had not fought any action in the whole of that 100 miles, and that there were very few casualties except in a few places where resistance was still being kept up. Very shortly, I suggest, all this is going to be ancient history. What object is there in the right hon. Gentleman once more awaking our fears by suggesting that there are German aerodromes all along the French frontier, directed against the cities of France? Why stir up these world hatreds? [Interruption.] Yes, I ask that definitely, especially when there was a commission of distinguished French generals who went all along the frontier and declared that there were no such visible signs of offensive aerodromes directed against France. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was not one of those who declared, or joined in declaring, that there were great German forces in Morocco.

Sir A. Sinclair: I did so because I believed it to be true.

Sir H. Croft: In believing it to be true the right hon. Gentleman pits himself against the evidence of those British naval officers who were asked to go there officially and who declared that there was not one word of truth in the statement, which is exactly on a par with the stories of guns at Gibraltar. Those stories have come to this country to turn us against this emerging Spain and to create trouble between us and Spain, Germany, Italy and other countries. The Spanish war will soon be over and the time has come for us to realise, whatever our views may be, that the longer this tragedy goes on the more pitiful will be the result upon the people of Spain. The right hon. Gentleman knows whose forces he champions. In the Madrid area they have put up a fine resistance, but they have now no possible hope of holding out. Surely the proper course of the democratic Powers should be to say: "You have fought bravely;


do not go on until vastly greater numbers still of your civilian population suffer and until starvation afflicts many of your children."
Surely that is the wise policy. Surely it is not wise to go on encouraging the Republican forces in Spain, as people have unfortunately been doing in this country during the last two or three years. They have had a great agitation asking for arms for Spain, in order that British bullets might kill more Spaniards. Why did we not follow the suggestion of His Majesty's Government from the start and keep out of this conflict? The Leader of the Opposition went to Barcelona to urge the soldiers, the International Brigade and other Spaniards, to go on fighting. He addressed an audience of Spanish troops amid fixed bayonets, and then he came back to this country not realising that he had intervened, in order to try to prolong the resistance of the Republicans in Spain. That was at the end of 1937.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Has not the hon. and gallant Member consistently encouraged General Franco and his forces to conduct their campaign?

Sir H. Croft: I never opened my mouth on this subject until the right hon. Gentleman's party had for three months made this matter the spearhead of attack against His Majesty's Government. It was only when I realised that the whole thing was done for a political purpose while men were dying in Spain and men, women and children were suffering because of the right hon. Gentleman's Left Wing, ideological ideas that I thought I would do my best to see that the other side of the matter was presented to the country. Let us not forget that His Majesty's Government could not resist these attacks. They had to keep their independence. History is going to show that the Government of this country, perhaps alone, have really honoured their word on the subject of non-intervention, and while they have been honouring their word incessant political attacks have been made upon them throughout this country.
We hope that the war is nearly over. I say to hon. Gentlemen: "You have had your political bean feast; surely it must be realised that the objective of the future should be that the new Spain should be friendly with this country, as Spain has been in the past." His Majesty's Govern-

ment have done most wisely in giving recognition when recognition was essential. Nothing could stop it. Who started to give recognition? Is Switzerland other than a democratic Power? She gave the lead. Is Republican Holland one of your reactionary countries? Holland has already seen the wisdom of this course, and so have Poland, the Balkan Entente, and Argentina. Altogether some 29 countries have now taken this action. Thank goodness our country is not going to wait to be the last to recognise established facts.
That is the whole question. The fact is that the Nationalist Government are controlling Spain, and if hon. Members read their "Daily Telegraph" they will have seen that a really marvellous organisation has been brought to Barcelona. When you realise the fact of this extraordinarily good government which is being established in Spain you realise that it is an accomplished fact. Let us do all in our power to assist that Government with counsel and advice to show them that Great Britain to-day, as in the past, believes the word of Spain when Spain says that it will insist upon independence. Let us do all we can to help them to recover from the horrors and the disasters that have afflicted their country.

6.9 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: It would be extremely difficult to go through the collection of mis-statements made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) on this matter. I should like to be in this House, it may be a few months hence, or a year or two, when the hon. and gallant Member, patriot as he is, has to stand up and say: "I am sorry to see that the policy which I advocated in Spain has resulted in the breaking of the vital communications of the British Empire." I hope that the day will come when that speech will most certainly be made. I am certain that that speech will have to be made. [Interruption.] I do not mean that I hope that the speech will be made, but that I hope that I am here when it is made. Many well-known journalists with reputations to lose have made the statements which the hon. and gallant Member has denied. They were not journalists from papers all on one side, but were from the "Times" and "Daily Telegraph," as well as leading American papers. They have actually been on the spot not only with the retreating army


but with General Franco's army and they have written of the bombing of the refugees on the road from Barcelona, as has already been quoted in this House in previous Debates. Such things cannot be denied.

Sir H. Croft: I must tell the hon. Lady that the correspondents of the "Times" and the "Daily Telegraph" were witnesses of no such things. It was purely hearsay.

Miss Wilkinson: All I can say is that the hon. and gallant Member is one of those people who believe that the Basques burned Guernica themselves. If a man will believe that he will believe anything. I am mainly concerned with two points, the first of which is the indecent haste to recognise General Franco. It makes a very curious contrast with the long time it took the British Government to recognise the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, when all fighting in its territory had ended by the end of 1919. In fact, recognition was given by a Labour Government. In the case of Spain, a large part of the central area is still in the hands of the Republican Government, but the National Government rush to recognise General Franco. If he wishes to get this policy across to the country the Prime Minister has to make some sort of a show of getting assurances of clemency, not only for the ordinary soldiers but for those who are the leaders of the opposite party.
We have been repeatedly told, even in the "Daily Telegraph" which the Prime Minister read out, that there will be clemency, except for criminals. This expression "criminals" is important. To Englishmen it means only one thing. A criminal is a man who has broken the established law of the country. We have a phrase "moral turpitude." On the other hand we have already had examples of what Fascists mean by criminal. They mean a man who has supported the legitimate government of his country when it was the legitimate government and when there was no question of it being anything else. They have flung men into concentration camps on no other charge but that they were officials under the Schuschnigg Government, when it was recognised as the legitimate government of Austria. Do hon. Members deny what I say? Take an example from Czecho-Slovakia. I

have seen photographs in the Press of men lined up and being marched to concentration camps with their hands behind their heads because they were folk-traitors. Why were they folk-traitors? Because they supported the legitimate government of their country when it was the recognised government of their country, and did not support the rebels. Is it the Conservative doctrine that these people are to be considered as criminals? We have had some oddities of international law during the last three or four years, but this is the most dangerous of them from the point of view of the party opposite.
I have here an exact translation of the law promulgated on 13th February this year. It is published and obtainable. It is General Franco's "State Law in regard to Political Responsibilities." It enumerates the parties and organisations which he says are now outlawed, and it goes on to say that:
Responsibility of a private nature will be exacted from individual members of those parties, in accordance with the legal procedure of the courts to be created for that purpose.
That is to say, it is retroactive legislation for these criminals. It says that:
members of such parties are liable for political responsibilities, and will be subject to sanctions to be imposed upon them by this procedure; also those sentenced by courts-martial for rebellion, adherence, help, provocation or exciting to rebellion, or for treason by virtue of a criminal activity against the Glorious National Movement.
That is the glorious national movement of a rebel general who, whatever his position now, was in July, 1936,in the position of an officer who broke his oath to the Government of the country to which he had made that oath.
Included in the list are not only the deputies elected in 1936, but those who convened the elections; and those elections were convened by a Conservative Government. Most of those who ran that election were put in prison by the party of the Right. It includes:
the members of the Government presiding over the elections and those holding executive posts in it.
These are the people whom General Franco considers to be criminals—men who took executive posts, and even the returning officers in an election that was being held under a Conservative Govern-


ment. The Prime Minister accepts the word "criminal" in the sense in which we understand it in this country, that is to say, including only such people as have been guilty of murder, or robbery, or looting, or some such thing, as indicating those who would come under the vengeance of General Franco; but in face of that you have General Franco's own list of people whom he considers to be criminals.
We are asked by the Prime Minister to face realities. What of the indecent haste of the Government to recognise General Franco, and the indecent haste of the City of London to be in with the newly-formed company of Senñr Juan March in order to get the high percentages that are offered? I would ask those who suggest that Spain will need this country, will need the City of London, will need foreign capital, to face one or two economic realities. I know the country very well. I was there a good deal long before there was any question of civil war. Spain is a country which in normal times accumulates foreign currency very quickly. It has always had an export surplus, importing comparatively little and exporting a good deal. Its oil, oranges, wine and valuable natural products are always in demand. Now it is in a vitally important position. In a world of very quick rearmament, it controls 44 per cent of the mercury supplies of the world. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) that 87 per cent. of the mercury we have used in our recent rearmament has come from Spain. The other big mercury deposits in Europe are held by Signor Mussolini. When Signor Mussolini, through a puppet Government, controls, not only the Italian supply, but also the 44 per cent. in Spain, it will not be a case of General Franco having to come and beg from the City of London, but a case of our own Ministers for Co-ordination of Defence having to consider how they are going to beg of General Franco, and how and what deals they are going to arrange with Signor Mussolini, who will control so large a part of such an important item in our munition supplies. It may be that the Prime Minister thinks that that is something that can be fixed up over a glass of wine with these gentlemen of his own class, with whom he has deep sympathy and of whom he will regretfully say a little later

that they have not understood that they were dealing with English gentlemen.

Mr. Levy: Peaceful negotiation.

Miss Wilkinson: Certainly it will be peaceful negotiation, but I suggest that it will hardly be negotiation on such equal terms as it would have been if there had been a democratic republic in Spain, drawing towards the democracy of this country and anxious to supply it with the necessities for their common defence. But, on account of the invincible, crass ignorance of the economic facts of Spain, and the wishful thinking of hon. Members opposite, it is not likely that economic facts will be considered.
There is one point in particular that I would like hon. Members to consider. I have no doubt whatever that the Italian Government may be very ready to oblige the present Prime Minister by a grand parade of an apparent withdrawal of Italian forces, but I suggest that it would be a token withdrawal. There are at present in the files of the Italian and German Governments blue-prints and maps of every corner of the Spanish Peninsula which General Franco controls. It is obvious that there must be; they have fought over that territory. There was a similar situation before the War, when this country was rather concerned about Turkey, and when Turkey was appealing to this country. What actually happened was that, with the connivance of the Turkish Government of that time, the German Government, similarly, had, not only blue-prints but maps and details of every spot in Turkey. The Italians and Germans are in an even better position with regard to Spain. They have had two years in which to build the aerodromes, the submarine bases, even the concrete foundations that are needed. We may get a token withdrawal, but there will be left in Spain a complete apparatus for the control of the government of that country in peace time, or so-called peace time, with the possibilities of an immediate attack.
Is there any hon. Member on the other side of the House who really expects that, after this enormous gamble in life and in money, Signor Mussolini is going to withdraw, having got the victory? Why should he? He has got everything he wants, and he has got it with the connivance of this country. This country has tied behind their backs the hands of


the Republican Government. For the Prime Minister to talk about humanity when we have refused to allow them antiaircraft guns to safeguard their women and children is a farce, and he knows it. We have refused to allow the Spanish Government to use the money that came to it from taxes at a time when it was the legitimate and recognised government of the country. We have ensured that Italy shall win in Spain, and we have ensured it at the price of avoiding the risk of war. If we had said to Italy, "If we are to have a non-intervention pact and observe it, you are going to observe it too," was Italy in a position to say "No?" But we did not want to say it. Why? Because the Prime Minister, incredible though it may seem, believed all the stories of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth.
We have seen it gradually dawning upon the more intelligent Members on the other side of the House that this really is a very serious thing for the British Empire—that with a hostile Government in Spain, which we have never allowed to happen for 300 years, it means danger to our vital communications. We could have had in Spain a Government that was vitally loyal to this country, composed of the same people who during the last War were loyal to this country; but we have chosen, instead, to back exactly the people and classes and parties in Spain who during the last War were loyal to Germany. These are facts, which cannot be explained away. For the possibility of buying over at the last minute a rebel General who even now is much more concerned—as indeed he ought to be—about the friends who have supplied him with men and equipment, we are putting in jeopardy the vital interests of this country.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Eden: In the Debates that have taken place during the last two years on the Spanish issue, something in the nature of a gladiatorial combat between my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has become almost a staple part of our fare. For my part, I will not venture to come between two such combatants, because I can readily imagine what my fate would be. If I may say so

with respect, I think it is important that the House, in considering the issue before it, should bear in mind, not only its importance from the point of view of precedent, not only its importance for the security of our own country, but also the fact that this particular issue is definitely a limited one.
For the two and a half years during which the Spanish conflict has lasted that conflict has been a source of continuing anxiety to Members of this House, wherever they happen to sit, and, let us make no mistake about it, whatever is the decision of the House to-night, that anxiety is going to continue, in a measure, for some time to come. From the very beginning this conflict has enlisted divergent sympathies in various parts of the House, and these have been well exemplified by the course of this Debate so far. Even now, I think, those of us who are speaking in this Debate are conscious—I know I am—that we cannot reveal the whole of our thoughts on this question to the House and to the Press of the world. That is a difficulty of which, in any discussion on Foreign Affairs, we must all be conscious, but it is especially obvious in the conditions which prevail at present. For all those reasons, I confess that I would have preferred not to intervene in this Debate, but I thought that that might perhaps have been regarded by some as shirking a responsibility, so, for a few moments, I will give the House my own view of the position in which we now find ourselves, and the alternatives which confront us.
It seems to me that throughout the Spanish conflict this country has had two main interests: first, to attempt to circumscribe the area of the conflict; and, second, to attempt to ensure the independence of Spain. The first of these was responsible for the initiative which was taken to put into force the policy of non-intervention. It is profitless, for the purposes of this decision we have to take to-night, to discuss whether that initiative was wise or unwise, but it is fair to remind the House that the decision was taken then because, in the sincere judgment of both the French Government and ourselves, there was the greatest risk of a spread of the conflict. It may be argued now whether that risk was exaggerated or not, but hon. Members have only to look back at the speeches of


Members of the French Government of that time to appreciate the truth of that. That was the origin of the policy. Having embarked on it, it was clearly our duty and the duty of the French Government to do our best to hold the balance even and, as far as possible, to see that policy carried out fairly. Nobody will pretend that that task was easy, and nobody, I think, will pretend that it was conspicuously successful—certainly I do not for the time in which I had any responsibility. We had to have resort to all sorts of devices, through systems of control and inspection, because we thought that that policy was better than the alternative. It seemed to me that, in view of our special responsibility, it was not possible for us to take any action which might be construed as condoning breaches of that agreement by anybody. I felt that to do that was to debase the currency of international good faith and to make intervention not less likely but more likely.
But that is a matter of past controversy, and I do not think that the decision we are called upon to take to-night is a decision on whether we approve of non-intervention or not. It seems to me that the decision is principally bound up, so far as the actual interest of this country is concerned, with the second of the two matters I mentioned, the independence of Spain. This country—here I think we are all agreed—can never rest indifferent to a situation in which Spain or any part of Spain's territories, islands or overseas possessions, is under the control, or even the partial domination, of any non-Spanish party. That is why, at the very outset of my remarks, I used the phrase that this Spanish conflict was going to be a source of continuing anxiety for us. Clearly it is, and must be, whatever decision we take to-night, as long as there remain foreign troops on Spanish soil or foreign aircraft on any of the islands that form part of Spanish territory. No one, so far as I am aware, will suggest that the present situation is satisfactory, or can be other than anxious while the conditions exist that we confront to-day. In that connection there is one warning that I would like to utter.
In the past, relations between this country and Spain, taken over a long period, have been good: sometimes very good. Those relations have been due to geographical reasons and to reasons of

common interest. We are now still the greatest naval power in Europe, and our strength in that respect is, happily, growing every day. Spain is a country with a vast seaboard. It is natural that she should be borne, for that reason alone, into friendship with a great naval Power. Many of my hon. Friends are convinced that the moment this civil war is over it will be possible to establish with General Franco's Government relations as good as those that have existed between this country and Spain in the past. It is true that this country has no design of any sort on Spanish independence—and that counts for something—and has no desire to see Spain anything but strong—and that counts for something. But, whether my hon. Friends are right or not, the warning I would venture to give is this: that if in future our relations with Spain are to proceed on a friendly basis that will be only because there is a realisation of a common interest, and not because of a pecuniary interest. I hope that nowhere is there any suggestion that that motive can have anything to do with the policy of a foreign Government towards this country.
What of the actual decision we have been asked to take? I would ask the House for the moment to consider not what some hon. Members might like the position to be, from whatever point of view they examine the Spanish problem, but what the actual position is. It is this: The French Government have declared their determination to recognise General Franco. A large number of other Governments, including the Balkan Entente, for instance, have done so already, and our own Government have made a similar declaration. M. Daladier, in the French Chamber the other day, gave his reasons, with what I thought was welcome clarity and candour, and if I may refer to another part of his speech which seems to have been rather more important than that which was a source of controversy earlier in the Debate, I would like to remind the House of the reasons that M. Daladier gave. He said he was convinced that the next few months, or even weeks, would bring some redoubtable reefs to be faced, and peace would have to be defended with vigilance. This, he said, was yet another reason for the French not being absent from Burgos. I do not ask the Government whether they endorse that view of the immediate


future in the international situation, but I do say that, in face of that expression of opinion by the Prime Minister of France, it is very difficult for any of us to say that we do not agree, or that we will take steps to try to stop the decision at which he has arrived.
Not a single Member of this House has approached the question from this angle, of what would be the effect if we in this House were to decide to delay recognition despite all that has passed. If hon. Members would make a mental tour of the great capitals of Europe and think for themselves what, from the point of view of each of those capitals, would be the answer to that question, I do not think they could escape the conclusion that to withhold recognition now, after all that has passed, would not assist the independent Spain which must be our objective. Members in all parts of this House have different sympathies in the Spanish conflict. There are some who ardently wish to see General Franco win. There are others to whom General Franco is anathema. There is a middle bloc of Members who have no ideological views but who are concerned about the strategic position of our own country and France.
More important, as I think, than any of those considerations is the argument which the right hon. Gentleman made just now about the conditions. Every Member of this House must have put to himself the same question: Are there conditions that can be imposed in connection with recognition which will assist to reduce the dangers of retribution, punishment, and so on when the war is over? I must say frankly that I do not believe it would have been possible to impose a complete amnesty as a condition of recognition. I do not believe any Member would suggest it, after all that has passed in the Spanish war. What I do suggest is that this country should exert itself to the utmost, with the French Government and the United States Government, to try to see that the closing stages of this war are as far as possible devoid of the sufferings which occurred at the beginning. Unfortunately, there are already possibilities of such sufferings happening, because both sides still possess political prisoners in considerable numbers, and I would have thought that the Government have an opportunity, and should use the oppor-

tunity in the closing stages of this conflict, to try to negotiate an armistice, in order to avoid the tragedy of the opening of these hostilities being repeated at the close.
One consideration which has weighed with me more than any other argument is this. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the House now agreed with the Leader of the Opposition, and we decided to withhold recognition, what would be the result? It is quite clear what the result would be. It would be a great encouragement to those who, until yesterday, were the Government of Spain, an immense encouragement to Madrid and to Valencia, perhaps even so great an encouragement as to result in their going on righting, when, in other circumstances, they would not have gone on fighting. There is no hon. Member in this House who is going to suggest at this hour that we ought to start sending munitions and so on to assist the Government of Spain.

Mr. Gallacher: Why not?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member is the only one.

Mr. Gallacher: Oh, no.

Mr. Eden: I must say that I think that to do that now would not only be futile but cruelly futile. I think we have to face what would be the result of our action if, after all that has passed, we now withheld recognition. I believe that the result of that would be to encourage the conflict to go on after it has passed a period when nobody thinks that the result could be changed. That seems to me to be a fearful responsibility for any Member of this House to take. It is not one that I myself am prepared to take, and that is why I shall go into the Government Lobby to-night.

6.46 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: Milton! thou shouldn't be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen Of stagnant waters—altar, sword and pen.
I hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) rose from that corner bench we were going to have reproduced the elder statesman, Sir Austen Chamberlain. He has gone, and we have


not here to-day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The House is making history which will look black in retrospect. Let us remember that there are in this country countless men and women who do not merely feel strongly on this issue but feel that the question of our honour is at stake. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I felt that he, just as badly as the Prime Minister, will look upon this issue, and indeed upon every issue that comes before us, purely from the point of view of immediate expediency. I believe that in the long run that which is unjust can never be expedient; and I do not believe that either nations or individuals can make friends by "sucking up" to the man who is on top. It has not been our custom in the past to seek friendship by humility or humble solicitations. Our strength in the past, as all the statesmen of England of the past have known, has come from the respect which foreign countries feel for us, and respect does not depend upon loans or upon armaments but upon acting on principle.
I have never been in favour of nonintervention in Spain. I have held always that it was the right of the Government of Spain, if they could get help, to get it from wherever they might. But if any non-intervention had been adopted, could anything have been more cruel than to have allowed the Spanish Government to get nothing and Franco to get everything? That is why people in this country are feeling this question so much at heart at the present time; not only the working class, though thank heaven, support comes solidly from them, but the people who value the traditions of this country in all classes. It is not merely a question of honour. There you have had for two years and a-half a most gallant people struggling for freedom as bravely as did the Swiss Cantons or the Dutch Netherlands—carrying on against greater odds than faced those countries when they secured their freedom; fighting with one rifle between three men, with half-a-dozen rounds of ammunition and overwhelmed on the other side by all the latest devices of war.
In the past it has been an English principle that sympathy should at least go out

to the weak fighting desperately against the strong, but here we have had this afternoon the same lies against a brave people and the same stories raked up after two years and a half without a tittle of evidence behind them. We have had England doing everything she could to secure the support and the friendship of the strong bully, kicking down the men who have been doing our work for us in defending liberty. It is almost over now, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, when he says that we are all anxious for the Spaniards to give in, to reflect with a certain pride that we in such circumstances have not given in—that the French, overrun by the German armies, defended Paris for six months; that in Spain itself Saragossa was held heroically until the people dropped down dead in the streets. It ill becomes us now to advise the brave men, who have but honour to fight for, to surrender without terms. Do we not know—even the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft)—what will happen when Franco does win? How many of these men, who can still die on their legs instead of living awhile on their knees, will survive when Franco rules? It has always been the case in the past whenever the working people have dared to go in arms against the upper classes, whenever they have been driven to it by the horror of their conditions and the unfairness of their lot, whenever these revolts have been put down, the worst brutalities in the world have been enacted.
When the slaves under Spartacus were defeated in Italy the roads from Rome, all down to Apulia, were all lined with crucifixes upon which the Spartacists hung. That was but a sample of all that has happened since whenever the governing classes suppressed the revolting workers. When they suppressed Wat Tyler—the men who rose under Ket in Norfolk, these were but murdered. They died easily compared with the way in which the peasant revolts in Europe were putdown. We have got back to-day to the fifteenth century, and they have shown us in Guernica, Bilbao and Barcelona what they mean to do. If I were a Spaniard with a rifle in my hand to-day, I would never give up. The crusade is over. The Albigenses are de-


feated; the Fascists are worse than the priests. What are the Government going to do? Accumulating dishonour, will they, now that we have recognised Franco, treat with him for mercury and loans, instead of using everything still in our power to save these gallant men who have fought so valiantly?
I would remind the House that at the beginning of this war the British Navy played a striking and even a noble part in rescuing the supporters of Franco who were in danger of their lives. We sent the Navy to save the people from Barcelona and from many other towns. Cannot they do the same for these men for whom there will be no mercy once Franco wins. If we use our ships to save these people to whom defeat and surrender mean death to themselves, and very often for their wives, at any rate we shall be doing something to wash out the accumulating surge of dishonour which the Government are inflicting upon England.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I think that the whole House always enjoys the utmost sincerity of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) when he speaks, and the more we disagree with him the more we appreciate the crusading spirit he always shows in any cause in which he believes. But the tragedy of the case put forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends is the tragedy of all history. As has been so often proved, those who are prepared, for the sake of ideals, to disregard the realistic facts of the present situation may, indeed, as has been the case in the past, cause more unnecessary suffering that perhaps any other people. The position in regard to Spain to-day is clear. You have the Spanish Government scattered, and a certain number of persons still holding out at Madrid, Valencia and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) has said that this House has at the back of its conscience that nothing should be done to encourage these men to fight on in a hopeless fight, which in the long run might well mean the sacking of certain great cities and all the misery that sacking must involve. Supposing the balance were still even and there were

some possibility perhaps that the Republican side in Spain might succeed, the position might be different.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said that we had never granted belligerent rights while the war was on, and, therefore, why were we granting recognition in Spain? Surely the answer is not a difficult one. During the days when the war was being carried on, the question of recognition of belligerent rights was deliberately used by this country, as some bargaining weapon which might reduce the danger of the spreading of the war, in return for belligerency, by getting the foreigners out of Spain and therefore making the Spanish War a home war and a less dangerous war to Europe. Those times have changed. To all intents and purposes the Spanish war is over. If you do not grant recognition you are playing into the hands of the very people whom hon. Members opposite denounce so often—the leaders of the dictatorship States. If you refuse recognition and deliberately drive the new Spain into opposition to this country, you are playing the game of the very Hitlers and Mussolinis who are so often denounced from the other side of the House.
That is not all. Suppose that we were to wait and say, "No belligerency until the last foreign troops have been withdrawn," what a temptation that would be to certain countries which shall be nameless to keep a few thousand men there in Spain indefinitely in order to make it impossible for this country to deal with the man who is to-day the virtual ruler in Spain. Whatever government is in office in Spain has great opportunities of working and dealing in trade. So far as we are concerned we only desire to live on terms of harmony with any government in Spain, and if we can play our part and use our mediation and our power for the cancelling of many of those debts which have been uncancelled, and to prevent things which will lead to increased bloodshed, we may play our part in stabilising the integrity of Spain under a regime which, whatever its weaknesses and whatever its faults, is passionately national in outlook and bitterly opposed to the cession of territory to any foreign power. Indeed, there is no reason why the new Government in Spain may not become a Portugal rather than a Nazi Germany.
It lies very largely in our hands whether the new Spain is to be brought into the paths of wisdom and peace or driven into the arms of persons who have views upon religion and any form of tolerance which are opposed to ours. That is our task at the present time. It is folly to talk about the bertrayal of a legitimate government when that government has gone. After all, the 40-odd deputies who met at Figuer as a fortnight ago were no more representative of the Spanish Cortes, even of 1936, than the 40 Members of the English Parliament who, after Pride's Purge were alone left and found willing to betray and murder their King in defiance of real popular opinion.
It is finally argued that the Government policy is the betrayal of democracy, and that democratic countries throughout the world will turn upon us because England has by non-intervention, permitted a pseudo-democracy to be defeated and destroyed in the fields of Spain. It is very easy, particularly for Members of the Opposition, to uplift their voices in regard to democracy and the sacrifices which are made for democracy, but it seems to me rather unfortunate that hon. Members opposite, who for the last five years and more have consistently opposed everything done at home in this country in the way of defence estimates for defending the democracy of this country, should to-day be uplifting their voices in loud protest because we are endeavouring to prevent foreign workpeople from fighting on to the destruction of themselves and their own land. It seems to me that this Motion of Censure is not only ill-conceived but that it is inconsistent and completely contrary to the facts.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: I wonder whether, supposing my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) and myself were in a hopeless case against overwhelming odds and believing in the justice of our case, we should none the less after a long struggle surrender without conditions. I cannot say. I can only say that for me it is a little difficult to find the stomach to urge brave men to take that course. But I am to-night going to take a course which I always try to take, a particularly realistic course. The Prime Minister urged us to deal with this matter not in a partisan or a prejudiced manner. I am going

to try to respond, though I must say that the example set by some of the previous speakers in this Debate has not been very promising. Like every hon. Member of this House I have tried to put country before party. When His Majesty's Government have seemed to me from time to time to be in uncomfortable danger of fouling their own nest, I have tried to speak and to act in accordance with my own judgment. But with the best will in the world—or with the worst will in the world—it would be quite impossible for me in my wildest nightmares to support the Labour party's Motion of Censure to-night.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went;—and, having returned;—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Custody of Children (Scotland) Act, 1939.
2. Export Guarantees Act, 1939.
3. Czecho-Slovakia (Financial Assistance) Act, 1939.
4. Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1939

SPAIN.

Question again proposed,
That, in the opinion of this House, the decision of His Majesty's Government to grant unconditional recognition to Spanish insurgent forces dependent upon foreign intervention constitutes a deliberate affront to the legitimate Government of a friendly Power, is a gross breach of international traditions, and marks a further stage in a policy which is steadily destroying in all democratic countries confidence in the good faith of Great Britain.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Adams: I have just had time for further meditation, but in spite of that I still feel unable to discover much virtue in this Motion of Censure. It seems to me a violent Motion. It is inaccurate. It is tendentious. Indeed its unmitigated savagery is almost an insult to the House of Commons. I should like to direct the attention of the House to one of its more tipsy phrases:
a policy which is steadily destroying in all democratic countries confidence in the good faith of Great Britain.


How unfortunate it must be for the Opposition when the foreign policy of the Government sometimes has precisely the opposite effect! I can think of at least three declarations within very recent days which are nourishing confidence instead of "steadily destroying" it. Only the other day the Government proclaimed our identity of interests with France. We, therefore, know that we are committed to the joint defence of each other's frontiers against attack whenever and wherever it is made, even upon the Southern frontier—the Pyrenees. So far as I am aware, France is still one of the democratic countries and not the least of them. In another place the other day the Foreign Secretary offered a warning to aggressors in the familiar phrase "Halt! Major Road Ahead"—certainly not a premature declaration, but one that is at least some advance since Munich.
Perhaps I may detail a third point which assuredly should commend itself to His Majesty's Opposition. Lately His Majesty's Government did something which should kindle confidence in democratic countries but may cause pain and grief to all those who think "Better the dissolution of the British Empire at the behest of the Nazis than co-operation with Russia." Indeed, I am surprised that after the recently announced trade mission to Russia the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) still finds himself able to take the Government Whip. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) expressed satisfaction about the coming mission to Moscow. I echo his satisfaction, but, in composing this Motion, this act of very sound sense on the part of the Government must somehow have slipped from the draftsman's memory. So he produced, to quote the attractive language of the Leader of the Opposition, "one of those half truths which are worse than a lie."
I hope that this Moscow Mission will be an earnest of closer strategic co-operation. To reject that possibility when Spain may be taking any course, which we cannot precisely predict, would be as foolish as to say to the people of the United States, "Stay over there. We object to your constitution. You have no king. Indeed you are rebels against the British Crown. You have been twice at

war with us, and we regret to recall that on both occasions you were successful. Many of our grandparents backed the wrong side in the American civil war. While it is true that you made our victory absolutely certain in the last war, you did not intervene until the third year of hostilities. Further, your Navy in our view is too large, your films are dreadful, and your account is disgusting." We could never, with the dangers that surround the Empire in present circumstances, be guilty of such fantastic folly. It would be suicide. Indifference to Russia to-day would be equally fatuous, and I am very glad that the Government seem to be departing from that disinterestedness about Russia which became apparent about the time of Munich and before.
Having said so much against the Motion, I am bound to say more. If, by any accident, the "Times" reports what I am saying—a thing which I doubt very much—it will be of no use for it merely to say that I disagreed with the Vote of Censure. All of us know that that newspaper, the main organ supporting the Government, is notoriously unfair and selective, and yet it pretends to be so fair and so respectable. If we had been asked to vote on a Motion such as "The House regrets the unconditional recognition granted to the Burgos authorities "—I should have found myself in two minds. First, as a matter of historical accuracy—this is a small matter, but we had better get it right—I would venture a criticism of the order of events as narrated by the Prime Minister. He said, "The President of Spain has resigned, therefore the Government is no longer legal, and therefore we recognise the insurgents." That is to put the cart before the horse, because what has happened, surely, is that France and Great Britain have recognised the insurgents and that then the President of the Spanish Republic has resigned.
I cannot understand why the Government have agreed to unconditional recognition. In the earlier days of the Spanish Civil War the argument was always prominent in our Debates that the sincerity of our physical non-intervention during hostilities would enable us to intervene effectively on the eve of peace. Surely, by unconditional recognition we are running the risk now of abdicating any advantage that we may have gained by a


policy of consistent and sincere neutrality. There is no ground for concluding, though there may be some ground for hoping, that this action of ours will curtail the bloodshed. According to the most recent reports the Valencia authorities, in spite of all, seem to be in a mood which says, "Fight on!" We, who belong to the same nation as Sir Richard Grenville, can, I think, understand and respect that mood and that spirit. The Valencia authorities are saying that, in spite of the threat not read by the Prime Minister, but implied in General Franco's message against those whom he is pleased to describe, with incredible inaccuracy, as the "Red Leaders." Moreover, I cannot help wondering how cruel and how appalling will be the vengeance of General Franco upon those political prisoners whom he may choose to classify as guilty of criminal offences. I suggest that there is really no logical answer to the point submitted by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), who said that totalitarian Governments define crime as opposition to themselves.
Nor in present circumstances can I see that there is any guarantee of abiding peace in Spain. We need peace there in the interests of our own security, but why do we not stipulate that the legitimate aspirations of the various nationalities shall be satisfied in any settlement in the Peninsula—I mean the Catalans, the Galicians and the Basques? You cannot expect a peaceful Spain unless you have contented Spaniards, because a discontented Spaniard is one of the most warlike beings in the world. I do not think those minorities will be contented with anything that falls short of autonomy within a federation. No doubt General Franco will soon come to us, the main bankers of the world, for money and then, whatever may be said about our inability to lay down conditions to-day, we shall be entitled to demand security. The best security for the repayment of any loan that we make to the Franco Government to rebuild the shattered structure of Spain, will be peace. And peace will only come through the satisfaction of the various national elements within Spain.
I have to recognise, in common with all those who desired the Republican Government to win, chiefly because we thought it was most consonant with the interests of Great Britain that the Repub-

lican Government should not be defeated, that General Franco has won, but I think that victory is still dangerous to us and we should be aware of that peril. The Prime Minister, quite intelligibly, says he does not want to drive General Franco into a feeling of hostility. It may be true, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth said, that we shall not see exactly a Fascist system set up in Spain, but that, surely, is hardly the point. Fascist communities can practise good international behaviour. Turkey under Kemal Ataturk was a brilliant and excellent example of how a totalitarian State can respect its international obligations. The point, surely, is that, however zealous and Spanish a Spaniard General Franco may be, he is in fact largely the creature of Berlin and Rome. Moreover, when we speak of hostility to Great Britain we ought not to forget that General Franco has bombed the Red Ensign. He has ignored our protests, or else treated them with contempt. My information is that Northern Spain has been converted into a strategic springboard for fresh German aggression. I find it difficult, indeed impossible, to accept denials about the German submarine bases in Vigo, in Pasajes and in Bilbao, or the denials about the 19military aerodromes which were not there before the war in the Basque territory. And I wish to say this with the greatest possible good will, even though good will from me may seen incredible to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.—If His Majesty's Government can in the Iberian peninsula thwart the German and Italian designs, good luck to them. But I have never been able to believe that Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini, whose international adventures have never been actuated by mere altruism, have intervened in Spain on such a huge scale merely for fun.
I took the view in the early days of this civil war in Spain that non-intervention, if it had worked, would have been the most expedient policy. But recently, when it has visibly collapsed, has been shattered and has crumbled, I felt that on two grounds—the ground of justice and the ground of British self-interest—the Spanish Republican Government should have had restored to it the power to defend itself. Those who fought on the Republican side thought, rightly or


wrongly, that they were defending democracy. It seems to me that what was done in Spain in July, August and September of 1936, just after the outbreak of the civil war and after the revolt of the army, when the Republican Government inevitably lost control for some time, is quite irrelevant to the dangers with which Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini have beset France and ourselves in Spain in the last year or two.
If I may end on a personal note I would say this. I, like many other hon. Members, have lost acquaintances in this Spanish civil war. Two of my friends, David Haden Guest and Lewis Clive, died in this cause which I certainly understood. It may well be that the lack of arms and aircraft on the Government side caused their death. They risked being killed, believing that they were in the front line of a conflict that was eventually gong to threaten the democracy of Great Britain. To-night we cannot predict the consequences of Franco's victory. We are merely conjecturing in the dark. We all hope that they will not be evil consequences, but I commend to all sides of the House without distinction of party this reflection. Whatever were the causes of Franco's victory, it would certainly not justify us, any more than Munich did, in relaxing our efforts to make ourselves stronger. Now, more than ever, do aggressors, actual and potential, upon the Continent, need to know that there will be available for the common defence of France and ourselves a great force of that army which seldom loses the last battle. In that way we may well hope to avoid having to fight the first. I submit that our security would be better served to-day by a powerful Navy and Air Force, and, in addition, by an Army of 1,000,000 men in this country, than by any exchange of courtesies with foreign generals who may have won a temporary victory.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. G. Strauss: One of the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister and by other speakers from the Benches opposite, is that the action of His Majesty's Government is humanitarian, and that by the recognition of General Franco, the central Government in Spain will be discouraged from fighting on, and thus a great deal of bloodshed will be saved. I am not impressed by that argu-

ment, particularly when it comes from His Majesty's Government, which all along refused to allow the Spanish Republican Government to buy anti-aircraft guns out of its own resources in order to ward off the attacks of aeroplanes which bombed its towns and murdered its civilian population. Further, the suggestion is made that the Spanish Republican Government, is, in any case, defeated and, therefore, we ought to do all we can to encourage it to surrender. That may be true, as long as the present situation exists in Spain, and as long as Italian and German armies remain in Spain. But I am convinced that if there were real non-intervention, if the British Government really stood by its principles and either insisted on the withdrawal of the foreign help which General Franco has, or else restored to the central Government in Spain its proper rights, the central Government would very soon be able to drive General Franco from the shores of Spain.
That Government has, we must remember, an army at least as large in manpower as General Franco's; it has a coastline of 500 miles, it has a large munition industry and it is far better off, as regards food supplies, than the Catalan Government. If given international justice by the withdrawal from General Franco of foreign assistance or, failing that, by having that help to which it is justly entitled from the countries belonging to the League of Nations, the right to buy arms and such supplies as it needs, the Republican Government might yet win this war. It is, of course, impossible for any of us to encourage the Republican Government to go on fighting. One cannot do that, but I disagree entirely with the alternative which is presented from the other side, namely, that we must either recognise General Franco or, allow the Republican Government to be defeated after considerable bloodshed. I believe that there is another course, which is to restore to the Spanish Government its rights, either by the withdrawal of Italian aid from General Franco or by giving that Government the aid to which it may lay proper claim; and if that were done I believe that the Spanish situation would settle itself in favour of the democratic Government in Spain before very long.
A further argument put forward to-day in favour of the unconditional recognition of General Franco is a geographical one.


It is said that as General Franco controls three-quarters of Spanish territory, and especially as he controls a large part of industrial Spain, it is reasonable and proper that we should give him recognition. I cannot accept that argument. We know that British Governments in the past refused recognition to the Government of Soviet Russia when that Government controlled all Russia and not merely three-quarters of it, and all the industries of that country. I think this recognition of General Franco, and indeed the non-recognition of Soviet Russia, involves a certain measure of moral support or of antipathy as the case may be, on the part of His Majesty's Government. The Government by this hasty recognition of General Franco are giving a measure of moral support to General Franco, and we know perfectly well that all along Conservatives in this House have been sympathetic with the cause of General Franco.

Mr. V. Adams: All of us?

Mr. Strauss: I say that the majority of Conservatives in this House have been sympathetic all along with the cause of General Franco. I do not think that even hon. Members opposite will quarrel with that statement. We know definitely that the actions of the National Government, whatever their protestations may have been, have helped General Franco right from the beginning of the war. Therefore, it is not surprising that at this stage they should recognise him and give him at the same time a measure of moral approval. But it seems remarkable that while the Government are anxious to shake hands with General Franco, they should be so utterly unconcerned about the type of Government which General Franco will set up and with the question of whether that Government, by its behaviour up to now, has shown itself interested in preserving International Law or the standards of civilised conduct. We know that, in point of fact, it has flouted International Law from the beginning; that it has not abided by the civilised code in carrying out warfare; that it has consistently bombed undefended towns, and on many occasions bombed or machine-gunned from the air refugees who were flying from bombarded towns.
A question has been raised as to whether such incidents really happened. Only recently, when refugees were streaming in thousands out of Barcelona

to the French frontier, we had ample testimony about the bombing and machine-gunning from the air of those refugees. I quote from a letter which appeared in the "Times" on 22nd February. It is signed by a Mrs. or Miss Pye, and is in answer to letters previously published asking why refugees were pouring out of Spain into France and why there was such devastation in the towns after the refugees had left. This lady writes:
In the Catalonian advance our workers (of a relief organisation) were bombed out of Gerona; they evacuated children's colonies from houses which were bombed and destroyed, and were themselves machine-gunned from aeroplanes which came down almost to roof level in order to massacre a greater number of helpless refugees. Those who could fled to Figueras, where I myself saw thickly congested masses of them on 31st January, when there was one raid. Two days later repeated formations of aeroplanes bombed the crowded market square, still full of refugees, for hours, killing and maiming hundreds.
This is the desolation and the torture, which must wring all hearts that are human, and it was this policy of terror and destruction that has been responsible for the panic flight of thousands into France.
We have had ample evidence of this type of behaviour not only recently in Catalonia, but also earlier in the war when the refugees were pouring out of Malaga. Yet in spite of the behaviour of General Franco's Government in these matters, in spite of the fact that it is continuing to-day, our Government, apparently, are not caring at all about moral principles or decencies, but are rushing forward to recognise General Franco unconditionally at the earliest possible moment. It is doing so in spite of the fact that from the beginning of the war General Franco's Government have attacked our shipping and ignored entirely all the protests we have made. Only recently we had a question and answer in the House which showed that General Franco's aeroplanes attempted to bomb the "Stangrove," to sink the ship and drown our sailors. After all protests we have made in the past and the immense indignation aroused in this country by the murder of our seamen, General Franco, apparently, is determined to carry on with his policy of ignoring entirely not only international law but the interests and the protests of this country and the British people. Yet there is to be an unconditional recognition of General Franco.
What a different position it would have been if an English boat had been bombed or attacked by Soviet Russian aeroplanes. There would have been great indignation on the part of the Government, the breaking of diplomatic negotiations and a howl of protests from Conservative Members. We remember how diplomatic relations were cut when two engineers were arrested on a charge of espionage, but when British ships are bombed for the purpose of sinking them and drowning our sailors, within a few days we grant unconditional recognition to the Government which perpetrated that crime. It is perfectly fantastic to think that by this recognition, and because of the telegram we have received from General Franco, the individuals who remain on the Government side and have taken an active part in defending their country against invasion, will receive any clemency whatever. Let me read a statement which was made by General Franco on 7th November, 1938, when he was asked about mediation. He said:
There will be no mediation because criminals and their victims cannot live together.
He went on to say:
There would not be a general amnesty after the war. I believe in redemption through the penalty of labour. Once it has been established what penalty fits the crime in question the criminal will be able to redeem himself through work and good behaviour. We have more than two million persons card-indexed with proofs of their crimes, names and witnesses. Those who are granted an amnesty are demoralised.
Is it conceivable that General Franco is going to act in any other way than the ruthless way he has behaved when he has conquered any town or village during the war? I suggest that the consequences of this recognition will be very serious not only for the people in Government Spain who will come under the sway of General Franco, but extremely serious for this country and for Europe as a whole. The future of Europe, the question of peace and war, the survival of democracy in Europe depend very largely, as everyone will agree, on the attitude of the United States and the sympathy of the people of that continent. The people of America feel keenly on the question of democracy—probably more keenly than the people of this country or any other European country. There has been a movement recently in the United States,

in which the President has played some part, to get the people to appreciate that they must lend their moral support and authority, probably their material support, to European countries who are defending democracy against Fascism.
Those who are trying to bring about this change of opinion in the United States are having great difficulty because the isolationists there say that the European countries are only nominally friends of democracy, that, in fact, in their foreign policy and their actions they are betraying democracy and strengthening the Fascist countries. They say that it is ridiculous for the people of the United States to sacrifice themselves in any way for countries who are but nominally democratic, and who do not take the slightest interest in defending democracy or the liberties of their own people. I noticed this very much when I was in America during the crisis in September last year. There was a strong movement of support towards England and France when it appeared that these countries were ready to stand up for the principles in which their people and the American people believed.
There was a different feeling the moment the Prime Minister went to Munich. There was a feeling that this country and France, instead of standing up for those principles which the American people thought were worth standing up for, were betraying those ideals. There was a strong movement towards isolation again in the United States, which was partly removed by the anti-Semitic wave which swept Germany some time ago. Again, the American people felt tremendous hostility against the dictators because of their terrorism and brutality, and there was another great wave of moral support for the democracies in Europe. I am certain that the unconditional recognition of General Franco will create again in the United States a wave of isolation. Their people will feel that Great Britain and France, acting largely under the pressure of the National Government, are not a bit interested in preserving the liberties of democracy in Europe, but that they are anxious, under the guise of appeasement, to strengthen the hold of Fascism in Europe.
The American people, morever, were extremely interested in the Spanish con-


flict itself. They felt that in Spain democracy was standing up against the Fascist enemy, and their sympathies were behind the Spanish Government. The American people and the American Government contributed vast sums of money and large quantities of food to relieve the situation in Republican Spain, and they will be aghast at the action which our Government have taken in helping General Franco to establish Fascism securely in Spain. That, obviously, will be the reaction of the American people. Therefore, I say that the National Government in granting this unconditional recognition are most seriously endangering the friendship of the United States and the support which we might have received in certain conditions from that country in case of trouble in Europe.
I believe that the only hope which now exists for receiving that support from the United States is a change in the Government of this country. Not until they see that this country has a Government which not only mouths democracy but really believes in democracy, and is prepared to stand up for the rights and liberties of the people, shall we ever get the cooperation of the United States in any struggle in which we may be involved. But the attitude of the people of this country is also involved in the action which the Government have taken. It is well known that there is very deep sympathy with the Spanish Republican Government among the masses of the people. They feel that the Spanish Government represent the mass of decent progressive opinion in Spain, and that they are fighting for something which is really worth while, not only for the integrity of Spain against a foreign invader, but for liberty against the tyranny of the old ruling classes and the brutality of Fascism—fighting for democracy, in fact, fighting for everything that is finest in civilisation.
There has been a growing conviction among the people of this country that, in spite of the nominal attitude of non-intervention which the Government have adopted, they have been as active as public opinion would allow them to be in betraying the ideals for which the Spanish people are fighting. I am certain that after this new action of the Government this belief will grow into conviction, and the Government will find that their appeal for

service from the people of this country, which has not been a very great success up to now because of the distrust in which they hold the Government, will become even less successful. There will be the natural feeling that they will not give service to a Government which appears to be as busy as it can in betraying democracy. If they give this service to build up the might and strength of this country they will feel that they are doing something contrary to their own ideals, because the Government will use the might and strength they are building up in the wrong direction, in strengthening Fascism. The Government are using the Navy, not to protect food ships going to the Spanish people, but to convey an emissary of General Franco to Minorca to demand the surrender of that country.
Therefore, they will feel that any action which they take to build up the might of this country is in effect building up a strength which will be used, not in preserving the rights and liberties they have at heart but in betraying them. The Government, I am sure, will find that the action they have taken, which is the climax of their policy in the Spanish war, will create hostility among the people of this country, and will find their plans for defence and disarmament made a thousand times more difficult. The only hope I have is that, having betrayed the Spanish cause, having by their action endangered the friendship of America, they will have aroused the hostility of the people of this country to such an extent that they will see in the Government a group of people who are betraying all the finest ideals of the British people, and will take the first opportunity of changing that Government and replacing it by one more in conformity with their own ideals and their own views.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I begin with a word of apology. I was very severely rebuked by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who threatened me with political death at the hands of my constituents, for having laughed at the massacre of children. I am confident that none of my constituents will think it possible that I could be guilty of that offence, and I hope that the right hon. Baronet will believe that I was, I think, not laughing, but smiling at the solemnity and the kind of


facility with which he found it possible to adduce very indirect evidence even for very improbable stories. Indeed, my smile had begun before he had actually come to the story, merely because of what seemed to me the indirectness of his evidence. There are two other points in connection with the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which I wish to refer. One is that the Motion before us makes a special point of the Government's action on this occasion being
a gross breach of international traditions.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite who is to wind up whether he knows any case in history where His Majesty's Government, before recognising a foreign Power, after a struggle of this or any other kind, has previously asked permission from the House of Commons. There may be such cases, and I would not assert, but I am inclined to believe there is none; and in this matter, whether the Government are right or wrong has to be decided without assuming that their action in recognising without previous debate is against the precedents.
The second point of this sort to which I would refer in the right hon. Baronet's speech was when he talked about our imposing conditions. Almost every hon. Member opposite has spoken as if it might be right enough to recognise General Franco provided we did it on conditions. The Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), and several other hon. Members, have certainly spoken as if it would be a different matter if conditions had been imposed. I believe that to be a complete misunderstanding both of the law and of the morality of this question. To recognise something is a matter of the relation between your perceptive powers and the facts; it is not a matter within your choice. You must recognise that four fours are sixteen, and you cannot say, "I will only recognise that four fours are sixteen if you guarantee that the value of the £ in relation to the franc shall go up." That is what recognition means, and I do not think that ever in our history there has been a case where recognition has been withheld in order to impose conditions. The only condition which is ever imposed in those circumstances—I speak subject to correction, but I think this is true—is the condition that the Government to be newly recognised shall be itself

recognising the international obligations of its predecessor. That is the explanation of the fact that it took longer to recognise the Soviet Government. For all I have to say to the contrary, perhaps it should have been recognised sooner but, I suggest the reason it was not recognised sooner was that it did not take over the obligations of its predecessors. That is the only condition upon which it is proper to withhold recognition of a Government. That is all I want to say directly about the speech of the right hon. Baronet who opened for the Liberal opposition.
I wish to say also a word about the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). Again, I speak subject to correction, and I hope that one of the two right hon. Gentlemen who wind up the Debate, on either side of the House, will correct me if I am wrong; but if I correctly understood the Prime Minister, the assurance that has been received from General Franco is the assurance that nothing shall be punished as a crime except what was a crime under the code before the war began. I think I understood the Prime Minister correctly. If that is true, the great mass of the arguments of the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow, and several of the other arguments that have been made become, if it may be said without discourtesy, completely irrelevant.
To return to the form of the Motion before us, I have already said something about what the word "recognise" means, and I would like to say a word about the phrase
dependent upon foreign intervention.
It has been asked why, if we could not a little while ago recognise General Franco as a belligerent, can we all of a sudden go much further and recognise him not merely as a belligerent, but as the Government of his country? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition fell into what I would respectfully suggest may be a legal absurdity when he talked as if it might be possible to recognise General Franco and at the same time go on recognising his opponents. But that it not the main point. The main point is that, surely, the reason why it may be right to withhold for a time recognition of belligerency and then, within a comparatively short period, to recognise even more than belligerency, that he is the Government of


the State, is that it may be supposed that General Franco, as long as he was a contesting soldier, was dependent upon foreign intervention, and that in the judgment of His Majesty's Government now—and no one else can responsibly make that judgment, and no one of us certainly can have very much evidence on it—but in the Government's judgment now, General Franco is now not a contesting soldier, but a successful Government. If that is so, the logic of the Motion before us disappears, because the words "dependent upon foreign intervention," cease to have any meaning. I think also that the words "legitimate Government" cease to have any meaning.
The first thing that a government must do to be legitimate is to govern, and I think the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland made it pretty clear, in the interchange—a sort of triangular traffic—which he had with the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow, that he absolved the Spanish Government from any moral iniquity, for any of the horrors in its territory before the war, because they were not strong enough then, and during the war because they were not strong enough then, and in the recent past because they were not strong enough. It seems to me that that admission really knocks the bottom out of this part of the argument about the legitimate Government, especially when it is taken in connection with the departure of President Azana. After all, hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are the heirs of the revolution which still, pending the next revolution, is called, I think dubiously, glorious, can hardly deny that King James II, by leaving the Kingdom and dropping the Great Seal into the Thames, did leave the Government vacant. If they take that view about King James II, I do not quite know why they take a very different view about President Azana and Senor del Vayo, and others of them.
Sir, I end as I began, with a personal apology, and I am sorry to do so. I have never before spoken in the House without staying for the rest of the Debate, and I hope hon. Members will believe that my departure this evening is for reasons not within my control.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: I will detain the House for only a few minutes. I would prefer really to express myself in the words of A. E. Housman:
Be still, be still my soul, it is but for a season,
Let us abide awhile and see injustice done.
But there are a few words I want to say. In 1936, when I went to Spain, I was told by the highest British representative I could find at Madrid that nine-tenths of the Spanish people were supporting the Government; that if General Franco won, after his victory 2,000,000 people would be massacred; that even then, he would not be able to maintain his position for very long, and that the people would rise up against him in a year or so, and overthrow him; and that all the slaughter would be in vain. On that occasion, I saw the men and women of Madrid, with very inadequate and primitive equipment, marching out against a well-armed enemy. Those men and women died, as the men and women in Catalonia died, because the British and French Governments had refused to allow them the right to purchase arms for their own defence. The blood of many thousands of men, women and children in Spain is on the hands of the Prime Ministers of France and Britain. As has been said very bitterly by one of the Spanish leaders, they have been beaten not by Fascists, but by the democracies, at a time when God seemed to have turned his face aside.
The Prime Minister has always desired the victory of General Franco. In June of last year it was as a result of pressure from the British Government that the French Government closed the Pyrenees, although we knew at that time that arms were going into rebel Spain from Germany and Italy. In January of this year, British pressure was exercised on the French Government to prevent the reopening of the frontier. As a result of the overwhelming material that was poured into Spain, just before the advance into Catalonia, by Germany and Italy—and in contravention of express pledges not merely in the Non-intervention Pact, but in the Anglo-Italian Agreement—the Catalonian armies were defeated, and the Fascist forces are now aligned on the Pyrenees. Last week, although the heroic people of Madrid and Valencia are still


holding out with unbroken ranks, the Government decided to recognise General Franco, and persuaded the French Government to do the same thing. Although there was a dispute in the French Cabinet, the argument which won the day for M. Daladier and M. Bonnet was the fact that the British Government wanted that course to be pursued. The Prime Minister made no condition as to an amnesty, although he knows perfectly well that if Madrid surrenders, the streets of that city will run with blood. When this afternoon, during the Prime Minister's speech, I interjected a remark about honour, the Prime Minister referred me to Sir John Falstaff. Hon. Members laughed. I do not know what they think Sir John Falstaff said about honour, but I have looked it up. This is what he said:
What is honour? A word.…. Who hath it? He that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. Is it insensible then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it—therefore I'll none if it; honour is a mere scutcheon, and so ends my catechism.
It is surprising to me to think that these sentiments should be approved by the Prime Minister of England. I think they should be approved only by men, in Shakespeare's own words:
In whose cold blood no spark of honour lies.
But as Shakespeare also said:
Life every man holds dear: but the brave man
Holds honour far more precious dear than life.
I believe that that spirit, dead in the Cabinet, still animates the heroic defenders of Madrid.
I do not know whether Members of the House of Commons believe that this world is ruled by some Divine agency and that there is some pattern to which nations and individuals must conform. I do not know whether they believe that national crimes and national apostacy are followed in the long run by national retribution. There is much in history to support that view. The most celebrated example is the case of Melos. The Athenian people, at the height of their power, forsook their principles and destroyed the inhabitants of that island. There followed the expedition to Syracuse and the destruction of the

Athenian Empire. Britain and France to-day are surrounded by enormous dangers, and we shall survive them only if our peoples are animated and inspired by high and noble causes. As both the British and the French Governments have sacrificed the high traditions of their countries, in Abyssinia, in Czecho-slovakia, and in Spain, our peoples, if war should come, would go into battle inspired by no noble ideal of liberty and democracy, but fighting only in the spirit of self-defence, which even the lowest animal will show when it is attacked. In the day of stress and danger we shall be haunted by the spectres of the nations we have betrayed, and the gods of freedom, liberty, and democracy will not be there to steel our soldiers' hearts. It may be that as a result of this moral surrender we shall be defeated and that we shall lie at the foot of a foreign conqueror, as we have never yet done. If that be the decree of Providence, I can only trust that in the struggle that will follow to liberate ourselves from a foreign domination the British people will regain that spirit of freedom and of liberty which our ancestors possessed, but which their degenerate successors in the Cabinet have forgotten. To-day I feel that this House should be closed, and that our churches should be thronged by multitudes praying for the restoration of that national honour which the Prime Minister has betrayed.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Donner: Unlike the hon. Member who has just sat down, I rise to support the decision of His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the Government of France, to recognise General Franco. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking the day before yesterday in Trafalgar Square, with that elegance of language and distinction of phrase to which he has accustomed this House, used the words "the betrayal of democracy," words which were incidentally used only this afternoon by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). "Two minds with but a single thought." Since when has anarchy been democracy? We are told that His Majesty's Government are betraying democracy in Spain. I wonder how many Members of this House remember the last speech in the Spanish Parliament, in the Cortes, by Senor Calvo Sotelo, the monarchist leader, and how he drew atten-


tion to the fact that in the last five months, under the so-called Republican Government, in July, 1936, before the Civil War began, there had been in Spain 3,300 assassinations—is that democracy?—171 churches burned, 284 buildings burned. Is that democracy? He showed that there had been 218 partial strikes and 113 general strikes. Is that democracy? He added that 69clubs and 10 newspaper offices had been burned to the ground. Is that democracy?
"You will be held personally responsible," Casares Quiroga, the Premier, told him, "for the emotion your speech will cause." At the same time Dolores Ibarruri, known as "La Passionaria," shouted across the floor of the Cortes: "That man has made his last speech." She was right. He was murdered by police officers of the Government. That is the democracy that the Leader of the Opposition accuses His Majesty's Government of betraying.
That is not democracy. That is anarchy, that is riot, that is terror, that is arson, that is the negation of government, the breakdown of all law and all authority. It is a democracy which did not stop at murder. I think the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to-day, marred as it was by personal attacks upon the Prime Minister, will do him and his followers little credit in the country. The Motion of Censure which we are asked by the Opposition to support, speaks of the National Government of Spainas "dependent upon foreign intervention." Has there been no other intervention? I have a list here of every kind of intervention, of aeroplanes, guns, machine guns,, and equipment sent to the so-called Republican Government, and indeed it was that Government itself which boasted that it was the International Brigades which held up General Franco's troops on the Manzanares River and saved Madrid. On this list of imported war materials, of even armaments captured by General Franco at sea alone, are 19,000 aerial bombs. No doubt hon. Members opposite will argue that they were a particular kind of aerial bomb which never killed women and children, though Republicans constantly bombed open towns.
What is the alternative to the recognition of General Franco? It is said by hon. Members opposite that they would like to see a certain number of conditions

fulfilled before recognition is extended. What are these conditions which should be fulfilled, and what happens to British interests meanwhile? Supposing those conditions are never fulfilled, what do you do about it then? Who is to be recognised if recognition is to be withheld from General Franco? Or are we to ignore the existence of Spain? President Azana has resigned to-day, and there is no Republican Government in existence. In to-day's "Times" there was a notice that it was rumoured that even General Miaja in Madrid had been replaced by Colonel Casado. In the "Daily Telegraph," which, to say the least of it, has not supported General Franco's cause, we had on the 27th of this month an article which read as follows:
With the President in exile, and the Cortes scattered, there remains nothing to recognise but a fugitive Ministry with no permanent seat and a more than dubious legal title.
The Motion on the Paper speaks of "the legitimate Government." Moreover, the former President himself, writing on 21st October, 1937, in "L'ere Nouvelle," wrote:
This constitution is completely-destroyed.
Senor Alcala Zamora, first President of the second Republic, wrote:
All the fundamental articles, those of frequent application, those which absolutely must figure in a constitution have been torn up and the latter completely destroyed. The corpse of the constitution is conserved because it is useful to deceive abroad those who wish to or demand to be so deceived.
Lord Strabolgi also spoke in Trafalgar Square the day before yesterday of His Majesty's Government's treachery to British interests. Would not the refusal of recognition now to General Franco's Government, the only Government left in Spain, be a treachery to British interests? For two and a half years hon. Members opposite have delivered speeches dwelling upon the dangers, military and naval, which this country must incur if the new Spain is hostile to us. We had one or two speeches of that description only this afternoon, and yet hon. Members for all this time have done everything in their power to render the new Spain hostile to us. I hope they are satisfied that they have served their own country well. I believe that Spain is still friendly to us. If it proves not to be friendly to us in future, we on this side of the House will


certainly know whom to thank for this development. The Leader of the Opposition himself spoke to-day of the puppet Government in Spain. Does he suppose that that is the kind of phrase which is calculated to render the new Spain friendly to us?

Mr. David Grenfell: What did the hon. Member say about the Republican Government?

Mr. Donner: I spoke the truth and testified to it. The so-called Republican Government is dead now and it matters little what anyone says about it. The Leader of the Opposition to-day did not hesitate to use the most wounding phrases which it is possible to use of any Spaniard. He said that General Franco had introduced Moors into Spain and spoke as if he had introduced an alien race. The Moors were introduced into Spain 1,300 years ago. Moorish blood is intermingled with Spanish blood; it is part of Spain; and to speak, as the Leader of the Opposition did, of the introduction of Moorish blood as if it were something to be deplored and something shameful in the Spanish constitution, is to use phrases which are as wounding as they possibly can be to any Spaniard.

Mr. Grenfell: In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, I ought to say that my right hon. Friend did not charge Franco with the introduction of Moorish blood. What he said was that Franco had brought Moorish troops across to fight.

Mr. Donner: I am speaking in the recollection of the House, and what the right hon. Gentleman did was to imply that General Franco had done something which was shameful, whereas of course the Moors are part of Southern Spain and their blood is the blood of Spain. Hon. Members opposite speak as if the former Republican Government were friendly to this country. If they had ever taken the trouble to read the Barcelona Press, they would have read articles as hostile to this country as it was possible for any Press articles to be. I am glad they make no attempt to deny this fact. If they did it would be interesting to hear how they explain the action of the Catalonian generalitat in constantly interfering with British trade and confiscating British property. It is astonishing that the Opposi-

tion should be so fond of this so-called Spanish democracy which does not stop short at murder, considering that we ourselves are a constitutional monarchy. It is a British interest to try and create a friendly Spain, and General Franco has already shown his desire to be friendly with this country. He showed it clearly in two instances: first, on 28th September when he declared for neutrality; and second, when he accepted our intervention and assistance at the time of the surrender of Minorca. More than that, a friend of mine, Lord Ronald Graham, visited Spain last autumn. He went all over Nationalist Spain and even into the front line, into University City opposite Madrid. He was there on 28th September with his wife and was entertained to dinner by the Nationalist officers in their trenches. While the bullets were whizzing over their heads the Nationalist officers drank "To peace and to Chamberlain." Does that sound like a hostile Spain? Explosive and soft-nosed bullets whizzed over their heads and we have the Leader of the Liberal party talking about a Government which honoured international law!
The prolongation of this horrible civil war is not a British interest. Indeed, if we were not to recognise General Franco now we might well prejudice our relations with Portugal, which no responsible Member will deny are of vital interest to this country. It is some time ago since the President of Portugal made a speech in which he said that the victory of the Nationalist cause in Spain was essential to the well-being of the whole of the Iberian peninsula. As the result of that speech Spain entertains more friendly feelings towards Portugal than they have had for many generations. It will be a profound mistake to under-estimate the part which Portugal can play in creating friendly feelings throughout the new Spain towards the United Kingdom.
It would, I submit, be absurd to expect to attach conditions to the recognition of General Franco. Indeed, such conditions are wholly unnecessary because we have had every assurance from him both as regards the future integrity and sovereignty of Spain and as regards clemency. On 50 occasions at least General Franco has given assurances that the integrity of Spain will be honoured. Hon. Members opposite say that these assurances are worth nothing and that


the Italians must dominate Spain. If they have read any history they would know that the Italian people have never dominated Spain, but that the contrary is the truth and that in past years Spaniards have, in fact, dominated Italian territory and a large proportion of it at that. Then we have stories, for instance, of Majorca being under the control of Italy. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) seems to attach great significance to newspaper articles. I do not share her view concerning the value of newspaper quotations, but I have one here from the "Daily Express" of the 24th of this month, in which a gentleman named Alan Moore head reports that "the Italians do not run Majorca." That is his headline. In his article he states:
I found no signs of companionship between Spaniards and Italians. Sailors from British warships in port have a freer welcome in the town than foreign airmen. They throng the cafes and the shops. They stroll about without passes.
That is testimony for what it is worth, as to the situation in Majorca. Although the party opposite say—and we agree with them—that they do not want Italian troops to stay in Spain when the civil war is over, some of them have given expression to the view that the war should be prolonged. If the war were prolonged it would mean a prolongation of the stay of Italian troops. It is the party opposite, not we on this side, who attach so little value to the Anglo-Italian Agreement and the word of Signor Mussolini. One hon. Member opposite pleaded for a continuation of the war because there might be a turn in the tide of battle. In that event on his own showing, not on ours, Signor Mussolini would send more troops to Spain. Hon. Members opposite are, therefore, guilty of the most complete inconsistency. They say they want to see Italian troops leave Spain but advocate a policy which, believing what they do, must entail their remaining. The truth is that a great many hon. Members opposite do not desire friendly relations with the new Spain. They do not desire friendship with any country having a form of Government which differs from our own. If they had such a desire they would not deliver speeches calculated to render the new Spain hostile to us, but would ask His Majesty's Government to arrange for lecturers to be sent, through the medium of the British Council, to

Spain. They say that this new Spain is dangerous to us because it will be used as a cat's paw against France and Great Britain. Do they really imagine that war-torn Spain, Spain which has lost at least a million dead, probably more, with half its cities shattered, with its war-weary people, is going to start a new adventure, a new war, merely at the behest of other countries? It is the most grotesque piece of psychology ever presented to the House.
Coming to the question of clemency, I will use a strong expression and say that hon. Members opposite have had the effrontery to ask for assurances of clemency, to ask for assurances of clemency after all that has happened in so-called Republican territory. Only in to-day's "Times," as has already been mentioned, there is a report of the shooting of 90 people—hostages, prisoners, including the Bishop of Teruel.

Mr. S. O. Davies: What about the 5,000 massacred in Barcelona since Franco got in?

Mr. Donner: There has been no evidence of that.

Mr. Davies: We dispute that.

Mr. Donner: If the hon. Member will produce his evidence we shall be delighted to examine it. Again, the Leader of the Opposition in his speech this afternoon said that the Prime Minister, with the influence he has with Signor Mussolini, might have used that influence now in the interests of clemency. Again I say that that speech does him little credit. If ever there was an ungrateful speech in return for what was done by the Prime Minister at Munich it was that speech this afternoon. I believe that any member of the public sitting up there in the Gallery—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Order!"]— who had heard the Leader of the Opposition speak this afternoon would not have known that he was listening to a discussion in a Christian assembly.

Mr. Sorensen: You do not sound very Christian. Does the hon. Member really assume that the views to which he has been giving expression in the last 10 minutes breathe Christian charity?

Mr. Donner: I have testified to the truth of what has been happening in Spain. I cannot expect hon. Members who have turned themselves into


apologists for murder to agree with me. I dare say hon. Members may take the view of the Bishop of Chelmsford, who said it was not true that 15,000 priests had been murdered in Spain, that it was only 6,000 and so really did not matter. I welcome the end of this horrible slaughter, the end of this terrible civil war. I welcome the decision of His Majesty's Government to recognise the new Spain. I welcome the social reforms which General Franco has already inaugurated. I welcome the better conditions for the people of Spain—the new houses, the raising of wages. I welcome the end of a régime which, under the label of democracy, has been responsible for a greater number of assassinations, tortures, criminal acts and cruelties than any gang of people have perpetrated in our lifetime.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner) very far in his argument, except to take note of the fact that the one main argument, in fact almost the only argument, that supporters of General Franco have produced in this House is the very simple one of atrocities. When we have asked the Government to explain to us why our fears for the strategic safety of this country were unjustified, why a victory for General Franco was not to be feared on those grounds, they have never been able to give us any answer. We always have some special supporter of General Franco with his alleged atrocities story. I am not going into these allegations in any detail, because I followed so many of them up, and I found in many specific cases that the evidence was merely hearsay. We on this side of the House do not deny that there was a period in the beginning of the War, when the Government was deserted by its Army and its police, when, as a result of long years of repression, long years of ignorance, long years in which the Catholic Church had neglected its duty, the education of the people, long years of low wages and grinding poverty, the wild spirits of Spain got loose and liberty became anarchy.
We do not deny that, we admit it, but we do say that for a prolonged period now the Spanish Government has kept perfect and complete order in Spain, that there have not been assassinations and

that there have been fair and just trials of anybody who was accused. We deny that there have been atrocities within recent times. Some of the prisoners may have been taken from the gaols of Barcelona. My personal friends have seen many of those prisoners within two months. Some of those prisoners may have been killed in the confusion of the retreat to France, I have not had time to sift the evidence about it, but all I know is that many of them have taken the oath and according to the "Times" 3,000 of them were left behind, perfectly safe, to be liberated by General Franco.

Mr. Donner: The quotation of Senor Calvo Sotelo which I gave, referred to five months of Republican rule before civil war began.

Mr. Roberts: I am not going to be drawn by the hon. Member into a long argument about that, except to say that all those murders were not committed by the Lett. Their full share was committed by his Fascist friends. The murder of Calvo Sotelo was in revenge for the murder of a young and popular policeman planned by Calvo Sotelo, and by those Fascists in Spain who were deliberately provoking disorder, as they do in the East End of London to-day, as they did in Austria, as they did in Czecho-Slovakia, as they do wherever Fascism wishes to get its grip. I am not going to be drawn into a long discussion about the atrocities. It is the only argument of those Members who are the special friends of General Franco. I draw a distinction, because I know that all supporters of the Government do not adopt that attitude. They do not, according to the arguments advanced to-day, appear to be very satisfied with the situation. There was, I think, a certain jubilance among the fifth column in this House this afternoon, among our Fascist friends, but there has also been a sense of malaise in the speeches of some Members, in particular in the speech of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I am surprised at that, because the case put up on the other side seems on the face of it to be such a strong case. What is the first argument? It is "This is inevitable, what else can we do? Franco has won, we must recognise him." That argument is supported by another, that recognition is the only humane thing, that anybody


who suggests that it is a mistake to recognise Franco now is cruelly prolonging the torture of Spain. Some of us have done a good deal more than others to alleviate that torture. It is so fortunate for the Government that recognition is not only inevitable, but is also the kindest thing to put these poor animals out of their pain.
There is a further way in which this policy is convenient at the present time, and that is that it happens to suit political expediency. It happens to be regarded as a rather clever stroke to come in at the very end. Although some hon. Members have asked us not to mention such subjects, there is the point that we are offering General Franco a little consideration, some credits, which we may presume will be used partly to pay for German and Italian munitions and to help him to win the war. It is such good team work. Hitler and Mussolini have ample war materials to spare and they have men to spare, too. The one thing they lack is money, and perhaps Great Britain will be able to spare some money, as it is the one thing that we have to spare, in order to make General Franco's life perfectly happy in building up a new State on the ruins of the democracy and of all those aspirations of the Republican leaders who we on this side of the House have learned to admire for their courage and their idealism.
I would ask hon. Members, what has been prolonging this war for months past? Is it the obdurate obstinacy of the Republicans, or the desire of General Franco and his Fascist friends for a humiliating victory over their Spanish compatriots, by which they might entirely wipe them out? Dr. Negrin made it clear several times during the autumn that he was ready to make peace with Spaniards, but not with Italians or Germans. I will quote one sentence of what he said, in order to compare it with the attitude that has been adopted by General Franco. He said:
Our peace policy is founded on reconciliation with those who to-day are our enemies, and it can be carried out only on a basis of collaboration in the future reconstruction of Spain.
Compare that with a statement which appeared in a Spanish Nationalist paper just at that time, and which was as follows:

We want no devil's truce. Comrades, if you hear anyone speaking of mediation, you will know that he is a traitor. Treat him as such.
That is the position to-day. I do not know what steps the British Government have taken to attempt effectively to bring the war to an end, but I shall go into the Opposition Lobby to-night because this recognition of General Franco does not bring the war to an end.
All of us would welcome an end to the horrors that have been perpetrated in Spain, but are we not, by recognising General Franco without obtaining an armistice first, throwing away all our leverage? It is useless to say that the conditions are never applied; I could quote letters from M. Clemenceau after the Great War in which it was laid down for the new countries, Czecho-Slovakia and others, that they were recognised only on the condition that they treated their political national minorities and their opposition political minorities with a reasonable degree of clemency. If it be true that General Franco appreciates our good will, I believe that we could have obtained such conditions. We have not done so because we are in such a hurry to rush and to beseech him, on hands and knees almost, not to do anything which might be hostile to us.
It is useless to say, as the Prime Minister did this afternoon, that General Franco has given some undertaking of clemency. What are the facts? What has he been doing? We were told that he is going to punish only according to the law of 1936, but the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has already mentioned an official decree which was published in the official Nationalist Press and which makes every sort of cooperation on the part of his political opponents a crime. To belong to the active Republican party is to commit a crime and so it is to belong to the Left Republican party or the Basque Catholic party. May I add, in a moment of digression, that it was a pleasure and an honour to be in Paris the other day when these questions were being discussed? I wonder whether some of the members of the present French Government realise that, according to that decree, members of the present French Government would be treated as criminals in Spain, as far as I can judge, and as far as I have:


heard French comment upon it. It was to be a crime to have been gravely passive in support of the Spanish Government. What was General Franco doing when he published this decree, after, I understand, the British representations had been made to him? Is that not his real reply to British representation? Almost every note which the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs has told us he has sent to General Franco on the subject of the bombing of British ships has been met by renewed bombing. That is the method of General Franco's reply to British representations.
I would ask the Government whether they can enlighten me on another matter of a humanitarian character? At the present time there are some 500,000 refugees who fled before General Franco's advancing forces. They fled without going into any argument because they were bombed out of their homes and machine-gunned on their way. They fled over the French frontier. How many of them will be able to go back? Many of them must go back, but cannot do so except to death, unless some undertaking is obtained from the Nationalist authorities. There should be an undertaking, perhaps with some guarantee. Without any arrangement being made, those people will go back to death. I was horrified to see in the French Press the report that one of the conditions of recognising General Franco is that those people should be returned to Nationalist Spain. I would like to ask whether that is so, and also whether the British Government cannot offer more assistance to the French, who have such an enormous task in providing for the refugees, and who have been more generous than any other country in Europe in maintaining them. Should the whole burden of caring for this wreck of people fall on the French? Should we not contribute more generously than we have in the past? I know that £40,000 has been given, but that is mainly for women and children, and the biggest problem is perhaps that of the men. In addition to these questions, I would like to ask whether, in the event of the Spanish Government in Central Spain deciding not to fight on, the British Government will make ships available to get the leaders and the endangered refugees out of Central Spain?
To some of us it is noticeable that the Spanish Government have at all times been willing to submit questions to third-party judgment. They have been ready to temper the bitterness of civil war with several offers, which have been turned down. For instance, it was they who offered to exchange prisoners, but, after the prisoners in the hands of the Republican Government had been returned, the Nationalists refused to honour their part of the bargain. Again, the Republicans offered to forgo, and in fact did forgo, the bombing of open towns. They accepted the International Commission, which is made up of staff officers from this and other neutral countries. They have at all times, in these humanitarian questions, been ready to meet any suggestion that was made. I say to the Government that, with that record, you cannot let these people die. There was published in the Press on Monday a letter addressed to the Foreign Secretary, over the signatures of a number of distinguished churchmen, and I would like to emphasise this sentence:
We are convinced that the vast majority of our people will not wish us to secure for ourselves political or commercial advantages from the new Spanish Government at the cost of condoning cruelty and repression by that Government.
I say that we have a moral obligation to the leaders of Spanish democracy, to those people in regard to whom General Franco has refused to give any sort of undertaking. Some of us regard this as a very dark day for many of the traditions which we have held firmly, and for which we have believed that this country stood in the past. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite realise to what an extent this question has stirred public opinion in England. Do they realise that more money has been contributed for Spanish relief than, perhaps, for any other similar cause in history? No doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that the total now reaches very nearly £1,000,000. I do not believe that such a large contribution, mostly from working people, has been made for any other cause.
I do not want to suggest for a moment, because it would give a false impression, that all that money has been given by people with political motives. That is not so. A great part of it has been given by people with humanitarian sympathies, people who did not wish to be involved


in the political controversy. I fully recognise that, and am most anxious to make it clear that I am not claiming that the whole of that money has been given from political motives. But this issue, whether on the humanitarian side or on the political side, has stirred the people of this country as no other issue of foreign affairs has stirred them for a very long time. One of the disastrous consequences of the policy followed by the British Government, long after other observers in other countries had realised that it had become an absolute farce—the policy of non-intervention—is that it has embittered politics in this country, and will continue to embitter politics here as they have been embittered by nothing else. I say without bitterness, but just as a fact, that as a result of to-day's decision—the culmination of the whole policy of non-intervention—many of those thousands of people who have been working to send help to the Spanish people, now that they cannot work for Spain, will work with ever redoubled effort to remove those whom they regard as betraying what they believe in throughout Europe, and who, they suspect, would not hesitate to betray it in this country.

9.4 p.m.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: I think there is no harm in saying that the speech to which we have just listened was the speech of a fanatic—a fanatic who believes in what he says. I have no doubt at all in my mind that the hon. Member believes every word that he has said.

Miss Wilkinson: It is true.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: The hon. Lady says it is true. I suppose she has seen it all. But I have lived long enough to know that you cannot believe all that you hear or all that you see, and it is very difficult to be sure of anything that goes on in this world. The hon. Member has talked about the enormous funds that have been raised in this country for Spain. It is a curious thing, but at the beginning of the war there was none of this talk about raising money for the poor people whom Franco had gone out to fight. They could be murdered right and left, and not a word was said. Nor was anything said or done about the hundreds of thousands who were murdered in Russia. I just mention these as examples. I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that the reason for the raising of this money

has been the very skilful propaganda that has gone on. I know how sentimental the people of this country are. You have just to touch them on the right side, just to get a slogan for them, and they will provide the money. They do it with the very best of intentions, believing that it is in a good cause, simply because they are carried away by the arguments that are put before them. I admit that propaganda from the other side has not been anything like as good, but one finds out that in the long run truth will triumph. [Interruption.] I am just as entitled to my own opinion as any of the people below the Gangway. I do not doubt that they believe what they say and I ask them to accept that I also believe what I am saying.
I am glad the Government have agreed to recognise Franco. I have wished that they would do so for a long time, but, having complete confidence in the Prime Minister, I was certain he would do it at the right time. I believe that, having done it, he will cause peace to come to Spain. I am quite certain it will lead to peace being made, and a lasting peace. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition is not here, because I am going to criticise his attitude. I had the feeling all the time he was speaking that he knew he had been barking up the wrong tree and that he wanted to change his objective, and that, for that reason, he wanted to make a dead set at the Prime Minister. [An Hon. Member: "It was justified."] I think it was not justified, and I think the country will agree that it was not justified. I wonder how many hon. Members below the Gangway would come back if there were an election now. Not many, I think. I noticed that the support that the Leader of the Opposition got from those behind him was nothing like the support he used to get, and I think his supporters—I do not say all of them, because there are fanatics in every part of the House—rather agreed with him that a shift of ground would be good. Reference was made to the gold which was taken from the Bank of Spain; it did not belong to the country, but to the shareholders of the bank. The Republicans have robbed right and left from all the houses which did not agree with them. If anyone raised any objection to having his goods and chattels removed he was simply murdered. That is not a difficult way of paying debts. I do not think that


Russia or France is owed much money. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the foreign volunteers on the Republican side all being out of Spain. I very much doubt that, because I know that a great many of these volunteers lost their passports and were made Spanish citizens; so there would be no question of repatriating them. And what about those Italians and Germans who do not like Fascism? If they were repatriated, they would be just going home to be murdered.

Sir Percy Harris: Hear, hear.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: I am glad the hon. Member who represents the Liberal Party agrees with me about something. That must be the first time that we have agreed on anything. The Leader of the Opposition also talked about the ordinary rules of civilisation. I wonder when they came into force. You cannot say they were in force when 400,000 people who held views different from those of the Government were butchered. There has been talk about clemency and an amnesty. I do not understand why the demand should be made for a complete blot-out of everything that has happened. A lot of these people have lost their fathers, mothers and sisters, and they cannot forget that the murderers are there, known to them, and that they should be punished. I do not think that any person with a clear conscience need be afraid of Franco coming into power, as he is doing. The hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) said she was looking forward to the day when she would drink the health of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I do not know what she would drink it in; I suppose it would be water. I understand that she was hoping that the hon. and gallant Member would have to get up here and say that he was wrong. I am quite certain that if he is wrong he will be the first to admit it. That is one thing about our kind of fanatic, that if we find out we are wrong we always admit it.

Mr. Pritt: You do not find out.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: The President of the Spanish Republic has now resigned, and I believe there are only 68 of the Cortes left. That does not make a very good Cortes to decide what the policy of Spain shall be. We hear that

Franco is "this wild rebel." He started by himself, and now he owns three-quarters of Spain. If the people of Spain were against him he could not possibly, with the armed forces that he has, keep order behind the lines. I believe General Franco has the democracy, the people of Spain, behind him. From what one hears one would think that everybody on Franco's side was an——

Miss Wilkinson: Italian.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Some people would believe and say anything. They cannot all be noblemen who are fighting for Franco. His supporters are the working people of Spain, and there are fewer police in his territory than there used to be, according to what we hear. [Interruption.] We have very good sources of information. There is another thing which is often forgotten, and which has not been mentioned, and that is that during the crisis Franco said that he was going to stand out for neutrality, and that he was not going to come in with the so-called Axis Powers, and I believe that he meant it. Another thing that we have heard about is the retreat from Barcelona. Of the peasants—not the fighting forces—there were 2,500,000 who remained behind in Catalonia, and they have given a very great welcome to General Franco. Only 100,000 crossed the border into France. I am not talking about the fighting forces. I have a letter here signed by Senor Vila and Senor Just, from which I will read extracts:
We have the honour to address this letter to you in order to express the satisfaction we have felt at the news that has recently come in from Barcelona. We are informed that the Evangelical Churches there renewed their worship on Sunday, 12th February, and that hundreds of our co-religionists were able to assemble in them to worship God as their conscience bids them, in which they were respected and protected by the Nationalist authorities recently established victoriously in that city.
Another extract says:
Accordingly, we would beg you kindly to transmit to the Generalissimo's Government the expression not only of our grateful feelings, but of those of millions of our coreligionists in Great Britain, to whom we shall immediately communicate the news through the medium of the religions Press of this country.
After the terrible martyrdom the Catholic Church has suffered in Spain at the hands of those who abominate God and all religion, and considering the fraternal contacts we have been able to maintain with many Catholics during the most ominous period of persecution, we sincerely trust that the be-


lievers who belong to the Roman Catholic communion in Spain will no longer regard the Evangelical Christians as enemies of the Catholic religion but as determined defenders of the basic principles of Christianity.
That speaks for itself. The Press, I think, have been helping very much the late Government of Spain. We heard all the talk when Franco was crossing the Ebro of "They shall not pass," but that proved to be a slogan that did not prove effective. They passed all right and the people left the city, and, what is more. Franco gave them plenty of time to get out because he did not wish to destroy the city if he could possibly help it. During the Ebro engagement we heard of the counter-offensive in Estremadura. I am sure that if anyone had a map and marked out the places, if he could have found them, he would have seen that the places said to have been captured from Franco in Estremadura had never been out of the Government's hands. I wonder what would have happened if the other side had won? Franco is an angel in comparison with what Negrin's Government would have been. If you examine the question of bombing of open towns, you will find that, when there was bombing going on, the Government of Spain did a good deal of it, and we know that 20,000 people lost their lives as a result of their bombing. I do not remember any talk or outcry concerning the murder by the then Government of Spain of this portion of the 400,000 people they have killed altogether. There was never any talk of raising any money for those who suffered at their hands. I remember quite well how, at the beginning of the Spanish war, Members on the Opposition side of the House were shouting out for non-intervention the whole time. Now they have got tired of that and have changed.

Mr. Cocks: We never did.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: There is no question about that; a lot of people did. I do not think that there is any use in trying to beat a dead horse, and in trying to influence young people in this country to have their slogans and their war cries. What on earth is the good of a meeting in Trafalgar Square and shouting for arms to be sent to Spain? If arms were sent to Spain, Franco would get possesion of them. Three-quarters of the arms he gets are what he captures from the other side. We hear of this outcry of arms for Spain being inter-

larded at the same time with the cry "We want Cripps."

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I am certain that never in the history of this House has there ever been such a pitiful apology presented in justification of a serious decision than that of the speech of the Prime Minister to-day. I heard him draw a distinction between the present situation and the situation that existed in the time of Marshal Serrano's Government and the Government of Don Alfonso. When Marshal Serrano's Government was in Spain there was no other Government. When that Government collapsed, and Don Alfonso's Government took its place, there was no other Government. There never was a question in connection with either Marshal Serrano or Don Alfonso of withdrawing recognition from one and recognising another. The Prime Minister is in a great hurry to recognise Franco, but it is not because there is a justification for it in the situation in Spain. Do hon. Members want to know the Prime Minister's real reason for his hurry to recognise Franco? It is not the situation in Spain, but the situation in Italy and in Germany that is responsible for the hurried recognition of Franco.

An Hon. Member: What about Russia?

Mr. Gallacher: The situation in Russia is stronger than it has ever been in history. It is a great, powerful country that stands out as the bulwark of peace in Europe, but in Italy and in Germany, the economic situation is of a very serious and critical character; and in Austria the opposition is now coming out quite openly against the Fascist regime. That is the main reason for the hurried recognition of Franco.
In Spain the Government still exists, no matter what shameful references may be made to it by the Prime Minister of this country. There is a powerful army, and the people are steeled with the determination to resist the Fascist invader, but the Prime Minister says that humanity should call upon us to end the strife. What does the end of strife mean under the conditions represented by the Prime Minister? It means death or slavery. When we hear of some of the churches opening in Barcelona, there is approval from hon. Members opposite as though the churches had not already been opening. But I


challenge the Prime Minister or any of his supporters on the benches opposite on this, that they will not find operating in Franco's territory a trade union or a working-class organisation. What is happening? The Prime Minister of this country is deliberately betraying this country. All our friends are being destroyed. Basic democracy is expressed in the role of the trade unions, the co-operative movement and the working-class organisation. In Czecho-Slovakia we had great friends in the trade union movement, the co-operative movement and the progressive parties. In Austria and in Spain the same things apply. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Russia?"] Yes, and the Russian trade unions.

Mr. Wragg: Is Russia a democracy?

Mr. Gallacher: Sure; on that you can be absolutely certain. There are continual interjections of this character. This particular Member I do not know, but I am prepared to go to his constituency and prove before his constituents that he does not know one solitary thing about Russia. The trade unions exist, they carry on their branch meetings, there is voting on all questions that affect the housing conditions, there is voting in the factories on working conditions and wages as well as for the Soviets; there is a democracy in Russia that does not exist in any other country in Europe. I return to the fact that throughout Europe the democracies have been destroyed. You cannot do that without destroying the support upon which Britain as a democracy might at any time have to depend. If you are destroying democracy in general, that means you are destroying democracy in this country. That is what we are up against and have to face.
The Prime Minister will probably tell us that at the end of the war the Italian troops will leave. The Prime Minister told us he had got an agreement with Italy that 60,000 Italian troops would be taken out of Libya. I am surprised that men can have the audacity to come here claiming to be representatives of constituencies, listen to what is served out to them and swallow it without the slightest consideration for the welfare or the interests of this country. Sixty thousand troops were withdrawn from Libya, then they were sent back and the

Minister tells us that the Treaty did not specify a permanent withdrawal. The situation is now the same as when the Treaty was made. In Spain you not only have the troops, but the technical experts of Italy in administration and other directions, and also Germany well dug in. I had some members of the International Brigade to tea here. They had been Franco's prisoners. These international brigaders were presented with a questionnaire which was of such a character that everything in connection with them had to be written down. Who presented them with the questionnaire? The Gestapo. The questionnaire was in German. The Germans have through the Gestapo almost complete control of the police administration in Franco territory, and you are trying to fool us into believing that General Franco is such an independent and high-spirited Spanish gentleman, that he will not stand for German or Italian control.
Can it be suggested that the organisation which the Nazis had before the invasion has not been strengthened a thousand times by now? The Prime Minister speaks for big international interests in this country which are opposed to the general interests of the people. He does not speak for the masses of the people of this country, for the great organised trade unions are opposed to the recognition of Franco. The shop stewards of the aircraft factories, the great co-operative movement, the great labour movement in this country—they are all against recognition. Yesterday I made an interjection that the Prime Minister should be impeached, not for being a traitor to Spain or other countries, but for being a traitor to this country. I maintain that. I hope that before long the people of this country will be aroused to such wrath and strength that this unspeakable Government will be swept out of office. [HON. MEMBERS: 'What a hope!"] What a Government! Look at the occupant of the Treasury Bench at the present time—a sort of elongated edition of Pickwick who was simply picked out of one job without any consideration being given to him and dumped in another. Does he react to it? I can imagine that if the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was in an engineering works and the foreman or manager came up to him and said, "You're so good. Get out of that


and come over here," what his reaction would be. He would demand his books on the spot. But here you turn a Minister out of his job, make another hole for him to crawl into, and he crawls into it. Take the Minister for Agriculture. He was taken by the scruff of the neck and the pants and heaved out of the Ministry of Agriculture, and he crawls into the first hole offered. Are these men with any principle, any character? No. I said the other night that they were simply a hotchpotch of misfits and objects whose proper place was as exhibits in Madame Tussaud's. Therefore, I hope the people of this country will be aroused to a feeling of wrath against the betrayals that have taken place, and will drive this Government out of office. I hope that this House will be aroused, and that the man who has been deliberately betraying democracy in Europe and in this country will suffer the impeachment he deserves for the betrayals he has carried out, and for the contempt with which he treats the Members of this House.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: It is a remarkable fact that the more minute the party to which an hon. Member belongs, the more convinced he becomes that he represents public opinion in this country—a view which is quite unaffected by the number of by-elections which the parties concerned may lose. The remarkable fact about this Debate, apart from the emphasis of the various speeches that have been made, is the fact that not a single Member who has supported the Motion since the Leader of the Opposition spoke has mentioned the Motion in his speech. I will turn to the terms of the Motion. It complains that recognition is unconditional, but no one has suggested how conditions could have been made. One or two subjects have been mentioned on which hon. Members wish that conditions had been made. Let us see how far an attempt at imposing conditions could possibly have served any of the purposes which they say they have in mind.
One subject, perhaps the only subject on which the House is agreed, is the hope that clemency will be observed. That question may become an immediate one but does anyone suppose that the delay or the refusal of recognition would help this country to exercise its influence on General Franco in the interest of

clemency? If that is not thought, the argument that some condition should have been made on that subject breaks down altogether. Another subject on which it is suggested that conditions should have been made is the satisfaction of the claims which have been put forward by this country against General Franco. On what conceivable legal basis could those claims ever be pushed to a conclusion until General Franco is recognised? It is of the essence of the situation that such claims cannot be met until the end of the war is reached and you know which side is victorious. Recognition of General Franco is a necessary condition precedent before the claims will be met. No one on the Opposition side has suggested how the meeting of those claims would be accelerated by the refusal of recognition.
Finally—this perhaps is the most absurd suggestion of all—it is suggested that, as a condition precedent to granting recognition, all foreign troops should be withdrawn from Spain. The moment that suggestion is examined it will be seen that to make that a condition is to make our relations with General Franco entirely dependent on the will of the dictators and to place it in the power of the dictators, for whom hon. Members opposite do not always express such trust, to control what shall be the relations between our Government and the Government of Spain. The Leader of the Liberal Opposition made a point about what happened in Minorca, and suggested that some Italian aeroplanes had acted against General Franco's authority. He seemed to think that that was an argument for putting it into the power of Italy to say when and on what conditions this country should recognise General Franco. Of course in law the situation is as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). Recognition is not a thing that you grant as a favour to the Government recognised. It is a relationship between someone with power to perceive and the facts. It is a recognition of facts, and that, of course, is the view taken by International Law. The hon. Member who spoke last talked about the great haste in recognising General Franco. He may remember that the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's Government in 1931 recognised the Spanish Republic de jure eight days after the departure of King Alfonso—not after his abdication.

Mr. Gallacher: There was no other Government in Spain. It was the only Government that existed.

Mr. Strauss: The practice that this country has almost invariably followed is well summarised in the often quoted authority, in which Lord Granville laid it down that before recognition could be granted there must be
a Government in Spain sufficiently settled and well supported by the nation at large to be considered by foreign Powers as the real organ of the nation.
What Government, if any, in Spain to-day can possibly be considered the real organ of the nation? It is obvious that either no Government whatever can be recognised, with all the chaos that that would involve, or that General Franco's Government must be recognised. The Motion makes the fantastic statement that the recognition marks a further stage in a policy which is steadily destroying confidence in the good faith of Great Britain in all democratic countries. In other words, the policy which is steadily destroying confidence in the good faith of Great Britain is a policy which has already been adopted by some of the chief democracies. France, Switzerland and Holland have adopted it and I doubt whether there is any great democracy which is not likely to adopt it in the near future.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is to wind up for the Opposition will make clear precisely what was meant by his Leader in his extraordinary statement about France. After welcoming the statement made not long ago by the Prime Minister, and confirmed by the Foreign Secretary, that we would stand by France, a statement which, I thought, had the approval of every party in this country and throughout the Empire, the Leader of the Opposition said, "What we mean by France is not a reactionary France." Does that mean that, if the Labour party came into power, their support of France against aggression would depend on whether they liked the Government which the French Republic thought fit to put in office? If it does not mean that, what does it mean? If they mean that that pledge shall not apply unless there is a Government of which they approve, the sooner the country knows it the better, and their electoral prospects will become even worse than they are to-day. Not one

Member who has spoken for the Opposition has given a single argument for thinking that the refusal of this recognition would serve a single purpose that they have in mind. I have tried to analyse the Motion and the extent to which in their speeches they have supported it. Some people might think that their Motion was insincere. I do not think so. I think that it is a sincere declaration of the most fundamental principle of the Socialist party, the non-recognition of facts.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the vigorous and excellent speech in which he submitted this Motion to the House, stated the reasons why the Labour party, as the official Opposition, hold the view that the step taken by His Majesty's Government in this matter is wrong, and that it is, in any case, hasty and precipitate. I suggest that the Prime Minister in his reply did not demolish the arguments of my right hon. Friend and did not adequately meet the points which he made. My right hon. Friend urged that it was not unreasonable that before any recognition was granted, certain conditions should be discussed and should be met—conditions which included humanitarian considerations and questions affecting the strategical security of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Apart from questions of humanity, apart from the democratic principle involved in this great struggle, apart from the issues of constitutional government which have been involved in this war—issues in themselves of great and fundamental importance—it is a matter of profound significance, if it be the case that there is the risk of military, naval and air forces of Germany and Italy being located in Spain or the Spanish islands. It is a question of profound significance whether such political conditions exist in Spain as may bring about that situation at any time. It is clear from what the Prime Minister said that he has not raised this question seriously with General Franco and that those issues have not been pressed with any definiteness or firmness by the representatives of His Majesty's Government.
Therefore, it would appear that His Majesty's Government are in a state of partial indifference to the military and strategical situation at the Western en-


trance to the Mediterranean. At any rate, I heard the Prime Minister say nothing which demolished the case made by my right hon. Friend or showed that the conditions indicated by my right hon. Friend were not, in themselves, reasonable conditions. We have had arguments about this being a struggle between two sides in Spain, in which Great Britain has no particular interest. But I submit we have a very great national interest in the situation in Spain. Moreover, it is grossly wrong to refer to the historic struggle which has taken place on the soil of Spain as a mere fight between two sides, as if no principles were involved in it, as if no lasting consequences to humanity were involved in it. The official attitude of the Government ever since the war began has been that there is nothing to choose between the two sides in Spain and that one is as right as the other, but I hope to show that while that has been the apparent, official attitude, even that has not been the real attitude of His Majesty's Government and the Conservative party. But to take the attitude that this is a scrap between two parties both of which may be equally right or equally wrong, is to disregard the principles of government to which the people of this island are attached.
This was a war conducted by a military general who had broken his oath of fidelity to his State—in itself a serious thing. I have said before to the House that if a British general were to break his oath of fidelity to His Majesty and consort with politicians and be a party to action against a Conservative Government with a view to upsetting that Government by force, hon. Members opposite would denounce him, and they would be right. But here was a similar case, except that this was a rebellion against a Government of the Left. That Government was constitutionally elected; it was the lawful Government of Spain; and this general and his associates, not only broke their oath of allegiance to the State, but they did worse than that—they actively conspired, from the beginning of the war and even from dates before the war began, with the enemies of their country who were preparing for the invasion of their country. According to the Prime Minister and according to the attitude adopted by the Government and the Conservative party there is nothing wrong in such conduct. They

say that it is no worse than the conduct of the Spanish Government which was defending its constitutional rights to govern as the lawful Government of the country. The very fact that His Majesty's Government adopted the attitude that there was nothing to choose between the two sides in Spain, that, as the present Home Secretary said in earlier days this was a mere scrap between two sides, is, in itself, an indication of the partiality and bias of His Majesty's Government ever since this business began.
My attitude towards rebellion against a constitutional, lawful and democratic Government is that it is wrong from whatever quarter it may come. If a Government is a democratic and constitutional Government, elected by the people, it has a right to govern, and anybody who tries by force to upset it, whether from the Left or from the Right, is guilty of an action for which he must take the consequences. I trust that if in future, any attempt were made in this country at forcible rebellion against constitutional authority it would be suppressed, and if at any future time, Conservative Members of this House, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, should follow those principles of General Franco of which he was and is an admirer—well I should like to be in the Government which dealt with anything of that kind that is started.
We shall to-night go to a vote on this Motion, and it looks as though the vote would be on normal party lines with the National Government people going one way and the Labour party and the Liberals another. We shall not have with us the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). When he rose to speak some of my hon. Friends wondered which way he would go, but I said, "Do not worry, he will be with the Government." I admit that he was in a difficult position. He said so himself, and he evidently had some spiritual doubts. The right hon. Gentleman has a great responsibility for the beginning of the policy which has led up to the present situation. More than once he stood at that Box and tried to deny that the Italians or the Germans were intervening in Spain, knowing, as I think he himself would agree, that they were. Still, I appreciate his difficulty.


I never thought that he would get very far from the flock and no doubt he will soon be back in it. No doubt the Prime Minister will take the course which he usually takes in such matters, and I think indeed he ought to do so in this case as soon as he can. However, as I say, I appreciate the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that he has such a big share of responsibility for the policy which has led up to the present situation. Those who hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might be found in a great majestic combination of democracy will, as I have always thought would be the case, be disappointed.
The Prime Minister when he commenced his speech resented what he regarded as a personal attack by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Really the Prime Minister is getting very touchy, very sensitive, very thin-skinned. If he really wants to know what personal attacks are like let him become a Labour leader. He will learn then how to give blows and how to take them. For myself I have not much room for the Prime Minister. He not only cannot take blows, he cannot give them. The truth is that the Prime Minister belongs to a degenerate political age. When the Prime Minister's father was active in politics he used to knock everybody about with great violence, and I think on the whole it was good. The politicians in those years used to make attacks upon each other which I should like to make myself, but my fear is whether they would pass the Chair in these more modem times. But the Prime Minister is really babyish, he is getting childish. He must expect to be knocked about; and this one deserves to be knocked about, but if he is going to resent it every time he is criticised and attacked or something severe said about him, I do not think it is consistent with a sense of confidence in his own case or with his own dignity, and I beg him not to be so touchy about perfectly legitimate and proper and truthful and accurate attacks by my right hon. Friend.
The Prime Minister said that he had been a Member of this House for 20 years. What I like about the right hon. Gentleman is his modesty. He said that he had been a Member of this House for 20 years

and in office nearly all the time. He is a lucky fellow, he started fortunately. He went on to say that he thought the House would agree that he was incapable of trying to mislead the House of Commons. If ever I apply for a job and want a testimonial I shall not write it myself. I should have thought that the Prime Minister, if he wanted some nice things to be said about himself had only to mention it to the Chief Whip, who would have arranged for an hon. Member opposite, perhaps the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, to say the nice things. There was an argument as to what M. Daladier had said, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the Prime Minister had misled, had deceived, the House of Commons. The Prime Minister did. There is no getting away from it. The Prime Minister might have said, "Yes, I did, and it was in the interest of the country that I should." I could have understood that. I think that is what the Prime Minister really believed. However regrettable that might be from the moral point of view I could have understood it, but for the Prime Minister to resent the suggestion that he had in fact deceived the House of Commons is really beyond what is reasonable, and is utterly untrue. Let me repeat what M. Daladier said in the Chamber on the 24th February:
Do you find it a matter of no moment that on 22nd February we received advice that the British Government considered that the hour had come to recognise General Franco and that we should wait no longer since a certain declaration by General Franco regarding the independence of Spain and his domestic policy were calculated to afford satisfaction.
Note that M. Daladier said:
The British Government considered that the hour had come to recognise General Franco.
The Prime Minister says that that is not a decision, that it is a thought, a speculation. Sir, that is a decision in principle that something is going to happen. Notwithstanding that, the Prime Minister, in an answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, on Thursday of last week, said this. My right hon. Friend asked:
whether the Government have come to any decision with respect to the recognition of the Spanish insurgent authorities and, if so, will he state the nature of this decision?
THE PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add to previous


statements on this subject.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1939; col. 573, Vol. 344.]
So far I think the Prime Minister technically kept within the rules of parliamentary evasion, but, in fact, he had reached a decision and on Monday of this week, yesterday, the Prime Minister was trying to persuade the House that the Government had reached no decision last week, and he adheres to that statement. The Government had reached a decision last week, and it could have been reached in two ways. The Cabinet could have met and the Prime Minister could have said to his colleagues, "I think we should decide in principle to recognise General Franco," and he could have got a decision. He could then say "The time and manner of this decision I ask you to leave to the discretion of myself and the Foreign Secretary." I do not say that that is an illegitimate procedure; it is perfectly proper, provided it was action which might be taken between that Cabinet meeting and the next. But that was asking the Cabinet to come to a decision in principle that General Franco should be recognised. That is one way; and it is probably what happened. I do not know, I was not there.
There is another way in which it might have been done, and the Prime Minister is capable of it. He may have said to the Cabinet: "I am not going to tell you what my state of mind is about recognising General Franco." After all, the Prime Minister has not too much respect for the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I am saying what I believe, and I very much doubt whether he has much respect for his Cabinet colleagues. In fact, I have not much respect for them myself. He may have said: "I have reached no conclusion about General Franco and I ask you to leave me and the Foreign Secretary complete powers to do what we like about it." Is that what happened? If it is, it is a curious way of treating a British Cabinet and our Parliamentary system. The Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for the Dominions must tell us which way it was. Was it that the Cabinet, in fact, took a decision in principle, or was it that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary during the week-end took a decision without any authority from their Cabinet colleagues? I ask the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to give us an answer to that question.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister's defence of the situation yesterday, in which he could not answer questions that he ought really to have been able to answer, was that he had not paid particular attention to the exact words used by M. Daladier. That is an amazing state of affairs. When the Government of a country with which we have friendly arrangements, almost an alliance, make a profound statement of that sort, the Prime Minister says that he did not take particular note of the words. That is an irresponsible position for the principal Minister of the Crown to take up, and the Prime Minister ought to be thoroughly ashamed of that admission. The alternative defence of the Prime Minister was that he could not charge his memory with the dates when decisions had been reached which were of most vital moment in connection with the foreign policy of this country. The Prime Minister has not come very well out of that incident.
The Prime Minister said that the allegation in the Motion that the policy of the Government is a breach of international traditions is untrue. He claimed that the Government approach this matter with no prejudice and with complete judicial impartiality. That is not true, and it never has been true of His Majesty's Government, ever since this great, historic struggle in Spain began. There was the policy of non-intervention, which the Government pushed, in association with the Government of France. I do not want to be unfair, and I say that the Government of France had their share of the responsibility.

Mr. Moreing: It was supported by the Labour party.

Mr. Morrison: I am making this speech, and I want to be fair. I say that the French Government at that time had their share of responsibility; but after all, it is our Government that is responsible to us, and not the Government of France. What did the Government do? They decided upon and published to the world a policy of non-intervention; not a gun, not a piece of military material was to go, not to rebels against lawful authority, but to a friendly Government with which we were in diplomatic relationship, a constitutional and lawful Government, which merely wished to exercise its ordinary rights of purchasing arms from any country and any firm that


would sell them to it. The Government placed an embargo on the sending of arms to the lawful, constitutional Government of Spain.
Soon afterwards, they placed an embargo against citizens of this country, animated by a great ideal of liberty and freedom—[Interruption]—I know how difficult it is for hon. Members opposite, in the present state of the Conservative party, to appreciate those sentiments and ideals. When citizens of this country wanted to go to Spain, the Government intervened, and took special action to prevent them from going. That policy would have been an understandable policy—although I still doubt whether it was a right one—if, but only if, all the other countries were doing the same thing. But those countries did not do the same thing. Germany and Italy never ceased intervening, sending war material, men and arms, and giving military services of one kind and another. His Majesty's Government deliberately followed a policy, not of equal all-round non-intervention, but of one-sided intervention, which was intended by the FascistPowers—and I believe intended by the Prime Minister—to be disadvantageous to the lawful, constitutional Government of Spain.
The Prime Minister says that the Government have no prejudice and that they have judicial impartiality. The policy to which I have referred proves that they had nothing of the kind; nor have they anything of the kind. Let hon. Members remember the statements of the Home Secretary, to which I referred earlier; let them remember the denials of Italian and German intervention that were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington and by other Ministers of the Crown, when it was a fact that intervention was going on, and when, I believe, the Foreign Office knew it to be the case. Let hon. Members consider also the pressure that was exercised upon the French Government to seal up the Pyrenees frontier, despite the fact that a bourgeois French Government of the Right, and not the Front Populaire Government, had previously made a treaty with the Government of Spain agreeing to supply munitions and arms to Spain because she did not propose to manufacture them for herself. His Majesty's Government repeatedly brought

pressure to bear upon the Government of France to seal up the Pyrenees frontier.

Sir H. Croft: Very unsuccessfully.

Mr. Morrison: I wish they had been unsuccessful, but they were all too successful. I ask the House to remember also the irritation of hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, when it was said—probably truthfully—and I am glad it was the case—that supplies were filtering through to the lawful Government of Spain from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Having regard to the fact that Italy and Germany had never ceased sending supplies, I say, all honour to the Government of the Soviet Union for sending supplies. But remember the indignation of these impartial people, who could find excuses for Germany and Italy sending supplies, but had nothing except condemnation for the Soviet Union when it sent supplies, and nothing but condemnation for leakages through the frontier between France and Spain. That is more of their impartiality, more of their complete absence of prejudice. Remember their attitude to the bombing and sinking of British ships and the killing of British sailors. If that had been done by the Government of the Soviet Union, His Majesty's Navy would have been out on the job quickly enough to defend the supreme rights of the British Commonwealth and to emphasise the principle that Britain rules the waves. But these ships were sunk by the reactionary General Franco, they were sunk by the aeroplanes of Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler, and as they are particular class friends of the Government, the Government did nothing.
Moreover, were not these ships and British sailors taking food—possibly other things? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I do not know, and hon. Members opposite do not know, but as a matter of fact most of these ships that were bombed had international observers on them, representing in part His Majesty's Government. I am not going to run away from the issue, however. In those circumstances, when Germany and Italy were sending war materials and soldiers to the rebels, I would not apologise, I would be proud, if British ships were taking war


materials to the legitimate Government. In fact, I do not think that was the case. Consider the Conservative "Observer," pro-Franco, anti-constitutional all the time, and remember the connection of the family of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) with that newspaper. Remember also the action of these impartial Ministers and the action of the impartial Prime Minister, that at the height of this trouble, after the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) had in this House, in answer to a question from me, agreed that he was a partisan and a supporter of General Franco, the Prime Minister singled him out, I believe because of that, for particular honour and Ministerial promotion by making him Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. No, Sir. I can only say that if the Government wished to maintain a reputation for impartiality, it was a grossly indiscreet thing to make that particular Ministerial promotion at that particular point and in those circumstances.
That is the case on one side, and if the Chief Whip wants a case on the other side, as compared with the promotion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, if he wants a comparison of the penalties for being a friend of the lawful Government in Spain, I recall to the Chief Whip the vindictive treatment meted out to the Duchess of Atholl, treatment for which the Chief Whip and the Conservative Central Office were primarily responsible.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me in what way vindictive action was used against the Duchess of Atholl?

Mr. Morrison: Vindictive action was used against the Duchess of Atholl by the promotion of trouble in her constituency. [Interruption.] It is really no good one person who is familiar with a political office and the workings of a political office trying to deceive another person who is also familiar with those workings. They promoted trouble in her constituency, and she is no longer in this House. I have no objection to discipline being administered in a party, but it should be impartially administered. The two cases of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and the Duchess of

Atholl are further proofs of the Government's pro-Franco attitude.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister went into the field of international law. I will be perfectly honest about it. I have made no profound study of international law, and I do not believe the Prime Minister has either, so that we both start from scratch. The only difference between us is that he has the Foreign Office behind him and I have not. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the writings of Oppenheimer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oppenheim!"] Well, Oppenheim then. It is a good job that I, unlike the Prime Minister, admit my deficiencies. The right hon. Gentleman said that Oppenheim had referred, as elements in the recognition, to the habitual acceptance of the authority of the new Government and the permanent character of the new Government. Neither of these conditions is fulfilled in the Government of General Franco. There is no habitual acceptance of his rule or his authority. There is no true permanence in his Government. I doubt very much whether that Government will last. It is not the end of an epoch in the history of Spain, and the Government may look very foolish as a result of their precipitate recognition. Oppenheim also said, what the Prime Minister did not quote, that an untimely and precipitant recognition as a new State is a violation to the dignity of the mother State, and we say that this recognition is hasty and precipitate. The Prime Minister quoted the late Sir William Harcourt, and again he referred to the final and permanent manner of the triumph of the victorious military power in the struggle against the Government. That is not analogous to this case.
The Prime Minister quoted Lord Liverpool, of whom I have never heard anything very brilliant, on the case of the South American Spanish colonies. Lord Liverpool made an element of the qualification of recognition whether the triumph was the result of a bona fide contest. Is this a bona fid contest? There is nothing bona fide about it. What is the good of suggesting that a contest is bona fide in which there is a rebellion of the Army, in which the Army and military material are gone, in which the country is boycotted in military supplies by us and others, in which rebellion is assisted by actual military invasion of modern mili-


tary powers? The Prime Minister quoted Lord Derby on the Carlist Government. That Government was recognised. It fell, as he later admitted, in six months, which rather indicated that it was a mistake to recognise it, and the Government had to recognise its successor.
The Prime Minister proceeded to justify his policy on the ground that the present Spanish Government is dispersed but ought he not to have had some reasonable patience without rushing in and breaking his neck, so to speak, to recognise General Franco before anything else could possibly happen? That Government might well come together. Then said the Prime Minister, there are ambassadors in Spain without a court which to attend. He ought not to make that point, for the British Ambassador has been away from the court practically ever since the civil war began. He said also that it is a breach of tradition not to recognise General Franco. Here comes the class prejudice again, because when the Bolshevists became supreme in the political sense in Russia it was years before a Conservative Government would recognise the Government of the Soviet Union. I ask the Secretary for the Dominions to tell us why the Government delayed so long in recognising the Government of the Soviet Union and are so precipitate in recognising the Government of General Franco.
Moreover, there is in Spain at the present time under the Government one-third of the territory of the country, one-quarter of the population and 500,000 troops. The precedent of 1931 in Spain is against the Government in this case because the late Government was really completely gone. There was only one Government in the country, and even then recognition was not given until an election had take place for parliamentary purposes. I suggest that if the Government want to follow the precedent of 1931 they might do that in this case.
We do not think that this policy of the Government is right, wise, proper or expedient. We believe it is created by their own bias against democracy in other countries, their own bias in favour of capitalistic international interests throughout the world. We believe they are putting the interests of capitalism before the interests of democracy and the freedom of peoples, and we believe also that

they are actually going so far as to put class interests before the interest of the security of the British Commonwealth of Nations itself. We feel that their whole policy upon Spain has been mistaken, and in dividing the House on this Motion tonight, defeated though we shall be, we believe that history when it is recorded will say that we were wrong——

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Truth will out.

Mr. Morrison: ——that we were right. We believe that the historians—I must repeat myself. I apologise to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, but I must get this right. Looking at the geography of the Mediterranean, looking at the intimate connection between the political control of Spain, the strategic security of our own country, the security of France, the communications of France with her African Colonial Empire, we believe that we are doing our duty to-night in challenging the decisions of His Majesty's Government, and we believe that when impartial history comes to be written it will show that their policy has been wrong, and that from the point of view of the freedom of the peoples of the world, the progress of mankind and the interest of the security of the British Commonwealth, the policy which we have urged is a policy which is right.

10.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): I cannot help thinking that the elements of the question which the House is considering this evening are much simpler than they are in most cases which we have to defend. We are not to-night discussing the foreign policy of the Government in general; we are not discussing the responsibility for anything that was done in connection with the war in Abyssinia, as the leader of the Liberal Opposition seemed to think; we are not discussing events that took place in Austria or in Czecho-Slovakia; nor, I beg to say, in spite of the speech of the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), are we discussing the rights or wrongs of the controversy, of which the Leader of the Opposition has thought it right to make so much concerning Parliamentary answers given two or three days ago. The sole question is that which is propounded in the Motion, and is whether His Majesty's Government are entitled to


recognise General Franco's Government as the Government of Spain. The Opposition think that that recognition is not well-founded, because it is contrary to the principles or precedents of international law, because it is unconditional, and because, as they say, it is supposed to have led to some disparagement of democratic institutions in this country.
We listened for some 20 minutes out of the 45 minutes during which the right hon. Gentleman spoke before he approached any of these questions. He delighted us all with what I may describe as a rollicking speech, and which, I hope, afforded as much satisfaction on that side of the House as it did amusement on this side. He expressed a great deal of disappointment with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). He would have us believe that he expected nothing better from my right hon. Friend than he got. The length of time which he spent in dilating upon my right hon. Friend led me to think that the iron had entered into his soul more deeply than he admitted. The right hon. Gentleman spent a few minutes in rebuking the Prime Minister for not trying to reintroduce the atmosphere which, apparently, prevails in trade union circles. Altogether, we have had as irrelevant a speech from the right hon. Gentleman upon the Motion before the House as I should think any of us has ever listened to.
The Leader of the Opposition, to put it very mildly, reproached my right hon. Friend the Prime, Minister with some crimes that he is said to have committed. If I understand the accusation aright, the substance of them is that the Prime Minister did not provide the House of Commons with an opportunity of expressing views upon the question of recognition until after the recognition had, in fact, been accorded.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman has got the accusation quite wrong. It was not the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman did. My accusation was that he made a misleading statement, a deliberately misleading statement, to this House.

Sir T. Inskip: In order, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said, to evade a Debate upon the subject. However, if I misunderstood—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did say it."] The right hon. Gen-

tleman said in order to evade Debate upon this question that we are discussing this evening.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman understands that the important point is that a Prime Minister, when asked a question, should tell the truth to this House. That is the simple issue.

Hon. Members: "Oh!" and "Withdraw."

Sir T. Inskip: Sir T. Inskip rose——

Sir William Davison: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to accuse the Prime Minister of telling an untruth to the House?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman's accusation went terribly near something which ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. Attlee: I made a statement with which I thought no one would disagree in this House, that a statement made by the Prime Minister in answer to a question should be the truth.

Sir T. Inskip: Perhaps after what you have said, Sir, it will be more in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the House that I take no further notice of this matter. The point was certainly made by some speakers to-night that the Government had taken out of the hands of Parliament the right to discuss an important question of this sort. That is based upon a misconception of the power of the Executive. There are many questions which the Executive must have power to decide without reference to Parliament, the only sanction being that if the House of Commons disagrees with a decision of the Executive it will have the power to remove them from office and to substitute a policy more in accordance with the views of the majority. But, of course, it is really only a debating point. It is not a point of substance, because here to-night the House of Commons is debating the question with the opportunity, or the power at any rate, if opinion leads to that conclusion, of replacing the Government with one that will take a different course.
Something was said as to whether the Prime Minister had consulted the Cabinet, or given them their proper position. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite need trouble about the authority


of the Cabinet for what the Prime Minister does. The Prime Minister is perfectly well aware of the importance of Cabinet responsibility, and I hope I may say that his colleagues are equally tenacious of it. If anybody is to criticise anybody for forgetting the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility, it is the Prime Minister's colleagues, and not right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The course of the war has undoubtedly led to a result at the present time which makes it necessary for the Cabinet, the Government and this House to make up their minds what are the consequences that have flowed from the course of the war. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the Government are always on the side of the dictators, but there is not a vestige of evidence for such a statement. Indeed, it has a most ludicrous sound to those of us who are just as stout defenders of democracy as any hon. Gentleman opposite. Both right hon. Gentlemen opposite complained of the coldness of this country to Russia. Is Russia a shining example of democratic institutions? I cannot help asking the Opposition whether it is just conceivable that their attitude to these questions of recognition is influenced by their very natural and proper preference for a democratic Government.
There was a time when three theories of recognition were held in different quarters. One of those theories, which was firmly held in the United States of America, was that any revolting party should be recognised as a Government if only they were going to establish a republican form of Government. A second theory was held by the monarchical countries, like Austria and Russia, who thought that the sole right of recognising revolting subjects belonged to kings. It was a British Prime Minister, Canning, who put the matter of recognition on its sound basis, namely, that it was the recognition of a fact, or perhaps I should say the recognition of an opinion about a fact, or a set of facts. The authority to form an opinion about a set of facts is, of course, the Government of the day, subject to some direction of the Government by Parliament.
I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what is to happen if a particular Government ceases to be the actual organ of the State. It has been laid down, in terms which no hon. or right hon. Gentle-

man opposite will contradict, that, when such an event happens, foreign States cease dealing with the Government in question, and open relations with its successor. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will contradict that as a proposition. Indeed, it is derived from one of the authorities that he himself quoted. I seem to have detected a belief in the Debate to-night that such cases are rare—that they happened perhaps, in the case of the South American republics 100 years ago or that they were considered in the course of the Civil War in America, but that such things do not happen to-day. Is the House aware of the fact that, since 1920, no fewer than 22 revolting parties have been recognised by different Governments in this country as the constitutional authorities in place of the Government against whom they revolted? Some of these countries appear in the list of recognised Governments two or three times over in the course of the 20 years, and in 1930, when a Labour Government was in power, no fewer than four such recognitions took place, notwithstanding the fact that the people who revolted had, of course, broken their oaths of loyalty and allegiance, and were in fact rebels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who were they?"] I can give a list of names if it interests the party opposite. In 1930, the Labour Government of that day recognised rebellions in Bolivia, in the Argentine, in Peru and in Brazil.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: May I ask whether in any one of the four cases the right hon. Gentleman has just given the rebel Government was recognised at a time when the old Government was actually functioning, as is the case with the present Spanish Government?

Sir T. Inskip: I take a wholly different view of the facts, as I shall show in a moment. But in all of the 20 cases it was a revolt carried to a successful conclusion against the Government which would otherwise have been the Government of the day. I will repeat what the Prime Minister has said, that of course the right hon. Gentleman opposite will recognise nothing.

Mr. Henderson: Was there any foreign intervention in any of these cases?

Sir T. Inskip: That really is not the point. I was addressing myself to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman


the Member for South Hackney that as soon as they found that people had revolted in breach of some oath of allegiance, the Government of Great Britain ought to support the Government against whom they had revolted. I pointed out that the Labour Government of 1930 had not thought of that as the principle when they were in power.
Then it is said that we have been too swift to recognise what has taken place in Spain. If I had the time, and if I were going to make the demand on the patience of the House, I could give case after case, not only from South America but from France, where revolutionary parties were recognised within a few months of their first breaking out against the lawful authority, to use the expression of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It really will not do to make the case that revolutions are always illegal, because most of the liberties even of this country are founded upon rebellions successfully carried out.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he is going to join the Communist party?

Sir T. Inskip: The right hon. Member need not be in any fear of that. I reserve that for the members of his party. Let me ask hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite this question: What are you to do when a Government has been fighting a hopeless war against rebels, when the contest has really come to an end? [HON. MEMBERS: "It has not."] Hon. Members say that it has not, but I read a few days ago a statement by a much respected former member of the party opposite, in which he said:
In urging the Republican Government to carry on a hopeless war, the Labour party is doing, in my opinion, a wicked thing.
Lord Sanderson was for a long time a great authority in the party opposite on foreign affairs. I think I have a right to quote him as an authority for saying that the war which has been going on in Spain is now a hopeless war, to use the expression which he has used. What are you to do when the old Government has been replaced by a rebel government? Are you always to go on recognising the the old Government although it has lost the power to control the population over whom it is supposed to rule, or are you to recognise a void or a vacuum in the

country? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition said that you cannot settle this question by legal disquisitions. That is perfectly true, but the way in which you settle a question is, first, by ascertaining the facts, and then applying the principles of the law to the facts that you have obtained. I cannot help thinking that hon. Gentlemen opposite have allowed their sympathies to distort their view of the facts. They say that the war is not hopeless, or do they say that? Do they really say that the position of the forces of the former Government in Spain to-day is that they could carry on a successful war against the forces of General Franco? [AN HON.MEMBER: "That is not the point."] That is the whole point of this question.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney said that the opinion of our Government here seems to be that there is nothing to choose between the two forces; that we treat the rebels as entitled to the same respect, consideration, or privileges as the Government against whom they have revolted, and he says that he hopes that in this country, if ever anybody revolts against the Government, they will be in a position to deal with the rebels. But there is all the difference in the world between a revolution in this country, where, of course, everybody should rally to the support of the Government if they believe in the principle of the Government, and a revolution in another country. If we are to take part in every quarrel between different parties in other countries all over the world, then we can say goodbye to any prospect of peace. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked us why no conditions have been made in connection with the accord of recognition. It is not disputed that no conditions could be forced upon General Franco except by force of arms unless he was prepared to accept them.
What hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are really asking is for some form of assurance from General Franco, but when they get assurances they are not content with them. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister read an assurance from General Franco it was received with ridicule and mockery. [Interruption.] Then how are you going to enforce conditions if you are not going to accept assurances from General


Franco? The fact, of course, is that assurances have been given not only on the question of reprisals, but on the independence of Spain, and I could quote them at length. I have them here on this Box this evening, but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not accept assurances. They want conditions, and I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, how you are to enforce a condition against any representatives of a Government or party in another country, if they are unwilling to accept them, unless you are prepared to resort to force of arms? It is not the habit of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite or their party to engage in any policy which is likely to lead to war. I know that they hate war just as much as anybody on this side of the House, and I cannot believe that they stand for a policy which is based on saying to General Franco that he should be compelled by force to assent to these conditions.

Sir A. Sinclair: Has the right hon. Gentleman certain assurances from General Franco which have not been communicated to the House, and, if so, ought we not to have them?

Sir T. Inskip: I cannot address myself as to whether they were communicated to the House, but let me give one assurance in addition to that which the Prime Minister read out as to reprisals. A message was given on 15th August, 1938, in a Note from General Franco to members of the Non-intervention Committee, that Nationalist Spain did not consent and would never consent to the slightest mortgage of its soil or of its economic life and that it would defend at all times its territory and Colonies.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with Lord Baldwin, whose Law Officer he was, who in 1923said it was essential that we should insist on conditions before we recognised the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Sir T. Inskip: I am not aware of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman quotes, and he cannot expect me to give an answer to it now. Let me say one word about reprisals. I think the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington was right in the observations he made to the House, that if the war goes on it is much more likely that reprisals of various

kinds will be made by both sides. The war will be carried on in an atmosphere of increased bitterness, and these temptations will follow. Supposing the war ends, the cause we all have at heart on both sides of the House—that there shall be a conclusion to the bitter, horrible, civil war in Spain—will be better served by having close contact with the power that is in fact the ruling power at the present time. What is the advantage to Spain of a prolongation of this struggle? If the two parties were still waging an equal combat, or a combat in which there was a prospect of the Government recovering lost territory or lost authority, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have a much better case than they have been able to make in the Debate to-night.
The fact is, as I can show beyond controversy, that there is no possibility any longer of the old Government of Spain recovering its authority by force of arms. Let me read what Senor Azana has said to-day:
Since the Commander-in-Chief of the Central General Headquarters directly responsible for the military operations informed me in the presence of the President of the Ministerial Council that the war was irremediably lost to the Republic, and seeing that as a consequence of that defeat the Government had already advised and organised my departure from Spain, I feel it my duty to recommend, and to promise to the Government in the person of its head, the immediate conclusion of peace in conditions of humanity, in order to spare the defenders of the regime and the whole country new and sterile sacrifices.

Mr. H. Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman forgive me if I complete his quotation?

Sir T. Inskip: May I not complete my own? The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me in the middle of a passage which has appeared on the tape. There is no possibility of my deceiving the House, because everybody has seen it. I had read:
…in conditions of humanity, in order to spare the defenders of the régime and the whole country new and sterile sacrifices.
I paused there, as I had a right to pause, to point out that in the opinion of Senor Azana as far as I had gone the war was irretrievably lost to the Republic. When the war is irretrievably lost for the Republic, do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite stand for the proposition


that this country must continue to recognise the Republic as the Government of Spain which has effective contact with the population? That is the question. [Hon. Members: "Read on!"] Hon. Members are so impatient that I am half minded not to read on. Senor Azana goes on to say:
The political apparatus of the State, Parliament, etc., are gone, and with them have disappeared from within and without Spain the machinery for counsel and action indispensable for the exercise of the presidential functions of directing Government action in the way that circumstances imperiously compel.
Is that what the party opposite want? Was the right hon. Gentleman inciting me to give this publicity to the statement that the political apparatus of the State had disappeared?
In such conditions it would be impossible for me to retain even nominally a post which I only failed to resign even on the day when I left Spain because I hoped to see profit by this lapse of time for the good of my country. I therefore place in the hands of Your Excellency as President of the Cortes my resignation as President of the Republic in order that Your Excellency may be good enough to find the necessary successor.

Mr. Morrison: In explaining his reasons for resignation in a letter to the Speaker of the Cortes, Senor Azana says he did not resign until to-day because he still considered it possible to negotiate successfully with General Franco, but the

French and British recognition of the Nationalist Government had made negotiation impossible.

Sir T. Inskip: Valuable as that may be to the hearts of the party opposite, it does not dispose of the really important passage which I have read, that the struggle is irremediably lost and that the apparatus of the State has disappeared, and in those circumstances both common sense and humanity make it necessary for this Government to decide whether they ought not to form contact with the only possible authority in Spain at present. The Government submit their decision to the approval of the House. It is based upon facts which even hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite cannot dispute. It follows precedent and, what appeals perhaps to most of us more even than legal considerations, is that it satisfies the humane feelings which lie at the heart of all of us.

Question put,
That, in the opinion of this House, the decision of His Majesty's Government to grant unconditional recognition to Spanish insurgent forces dependent upon foreign intervention constitutes a deliberate affront to the legitimate Government of a friendly Power, is a gross breach of international traditions, and marks a further stage in a policy which is steadily destroying in all democratic countries confidence in the good faith of Great Britain.

The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 344.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jagger, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Davies, S. D. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Day, H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Dobbie, W.
John, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Ede, J. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Ammon, C. G.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Jonas, J. J. (Silvertown)


Anderson, F. (Whilehaven)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Foot, D. M.
Kirby, B. V.


Banfield, J. W.
Frankel, D.
Kirkwood, D.


Barnes, A. J.
Gallacher, W.
Lawson, J. J.


Barr, J.
Gardner, B. W.
Leach, W.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Leonard, W.


Batey, J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leslie, J. R.


Bellenger, F. J.
Gibbins, J.
Lunn, W.


Benson, G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Bevan, A.
Graham D. M. (Hamilton)
McEntee, V. La T.


Broad, F. A.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maclean, N.


Bromfield, W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
MacNeill Weir, L.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Grenfell, D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mander, G. Is M.


Burke, W. A.
Groves, T. E.
Marklew, E.


Cape, T.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Marshall, F.


Charleton, H. C.
Hardie, Agnes
Mathers, G.


Chater, D.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Maxton, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, A.
Messer, F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Milner, Major J.


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.


Cove, W. G.
Hills, A. (Pontefraot)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncastor)


Daggar, G.
Hollins, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Dalton, H.
Hopkin, D.
Morrison, R, C. (Tottenham, N.)




Muff, G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Viant, S. P.


Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Sanders, W. S.
Walker, J.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Sexton. T. M.
Watson, W. McL.


Oliver, G. H.
Shinwell, E.
Welsh, J. C.


Parker, J.
Silverman, S. S.
Westwood, J.


Parkinson, J. A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Whileley, W. (Blaydon)


Pearson, A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Price, M. P.
Smith, T. (Normenton)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Pritt, D. N.
Sorenson, R. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith



Ridley, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ritson, J.
Tinker, J. J.
Sir Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Tomlinson, G.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Albery, Sir Irving
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Grimston, R. V.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn, A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Apsley, Lord
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hambro, A. V.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Hammersley, S. S.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hannah, I. C.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cross, R. H.
Harbord, A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, Sir G.


Balniel, Lord
Crowder, J F. E.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Culverwell, C. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Davidson, Viscountess
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel A. P.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm h)
De Chair, S. S
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Beechman, N. A.
De la Bère, R.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Higgs, W. F.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Denville, Alfred
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.


Bernays, R. H.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Holdsworth, H.


Blair, Sir R.
Dodd, J. S.
Holmes, J. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Doland, G. F.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Donner, P. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Bracken, B.
Drewe, C.
Hulbert, N. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Holderness)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hunloke, H. P.


Brass, Sir W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hunter, T.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duggan, H. J.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Broad bridge, Sir G. T.
Duncan, J. A, L.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Dunglass, Lord
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Eastwood, J. F.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Eckersley, P. T.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Joel, D. J. B.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Edge, Sir W.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Bull, B. B.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Jonas, L. (Swansea W.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Keeling, E. H.


Burghley, Lord
Ellis, Sir G.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Emery, J. F.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Butcher, H. W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Errington, E.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Latham, Sir P.


Cary, R. A.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Fildes, Sir H.
Law, R. K. (Hall, S.W.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fleming, E. L.
Leech, Sir J W.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lees-Jones, J.


Channon, H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Furness, S. N.
Levy, T.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lewis, O.


Charlton, A. E. L.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Liddall, W. S.


Christie, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Lindsay, K. M.


Clarke, Colonel ft. S. (E. Grinstead)
Glucksteln, L. H.
Lipson, D. L.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Goldie, N. B.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Lloyd, G. W.







Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Loftus, P. C.
Porritt, R. W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Storey, S.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Radford, E. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Rom)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Strickland, Captain W. f.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ramsbotham, H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


McKie, J. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Rankin, Sir R.
Tasker, Sir R. J.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tate, Mavis C.


Maonamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Magnay, T.
Rayner. Major R. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Maitland, Sir Adam
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Markham, S. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Touche, G. C.


Marsden, Commander A
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Train, Sir J.


Maun, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K, M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Medlicott, F.
Rowlands, G.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Warrender, Sir V.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Salmon, Sir I.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Moreing, A. C.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Sandys, E. D.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Scott, Lord William
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Solley, H. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Munro, P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Nall, Sir J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Winlerton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nicholson, G. (Farnsham)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Simmonds, O. E.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


O'Connor, Sir Terenoe J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lt'st)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Palmer, G. E. H.
Smith, Braoewell (Dulwich)
Wragg, H.


Patrick, C. M.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. G.


Peake, O.
Smithers, Sir W.
York, C.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Snadden, W. MeN.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald



Petherick, M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Captain Margesson and Lieut.-


Pilkington, R.
Spens, W. P.
Colonel Kerr.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of an area comprising a portion of the County of Surrey, for the suspension of powers of purchase of the Undertaking, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 31st day of January, 1939, be approved."—[Captain Austin Hudson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — MILLING INDUSTRY.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.13 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: I wish to raise the question of the milling industry. Flour is a national necessity; and it should not, therefore, be capable of being exploited by large and vested interests which hold a virtual monopoly. It would not be overstating the case if I said that three large milling combines hold a virtual monopoly in this country to-day. No doubt it is by their ability and foresight that these combines have achieved this result, but are they not being unduly protected by the fact that they are able to identify themselves, when it suits their purpose, with the Food Defence Plans Department, and with the advisory committee which is linked up with that, and which, even if not directly connected with the Millers' Mutual, is certainly often influenced by advice from that source. Therefore, they are all correlated. What does the Millers' Mutual


do? It succeeds in assuring to the milling industry, by means of a price-fixing ring, dertain substantial profits. Who is it that contributes to these profits? It is, of course, the general public. What is the real purpose of this extensive and complicated machinery? Is it not set up very largely for the purpose of dominating the country's bread supply and crushing out of existence a large number of citizens who have helped to build up the trade over a period of many years?
What is the Government's attitude? The Government, by its original purchase of a security stock, that is, stock against an emergency, acquiesced in this state of affairs, inasmuch as practically the entire national emergency stock of wheat was supplied through Messrs. Rank. Do not think I do not approve of an emergency stock as vital and necessary, and I am fully aware that Messrs. Rank made no charge for this service. At the same time, it will be obvious to anyone with any business acumen and a knowledge of this subject how extremely valuable information and a knowledge of the Government's intentions would be to large concerns engaged in the grain trade, and how detrimental a lack of it would be to the smaller men to whom the information was not available. On more than one occasion I have ventilated my objections against a few millionaire directors of combines being allowed to dominate and control the people's bread, but every request of mine for an inquiry into certain circumstances in regard to these matters has been refused. The President of the Board of Trade has stated that there is nothing to inquire about.
The difficulties to be encountered must not be under-estimated, and I have no doubt that every obstacle will be put in my way. There is only a slender chance of any Press being available outside the faithful record in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It may be wondered at that I should say there is only a slender chance of any Press being available. I do not think that severe criticism of the Press would be entirely fair. The editors of all newspapers have the duty of doing the best they can for the papers of which they are editors, and to launch a campaign against the milling combines would undoubtedly entail retaliation, and they would lose substantial sums in advertisements. It is substantially true to say it was almost

impossible to get any Press on any matter affecting patent medicines, milling combines or brewery interests, and I hope that my remarks will be taken in the right spirit and will not cause offence to the Press who are always fair to me and give me a fair deal on other matters. I have to say that because I believe it to be substantially true.
I am making no accusation against the integrity of the Board of Trade but I suggest that there has been ineptitude in safeguarding the public against these abuses. The integrity of the Board of Trade remains, and the ineptitude of the Board also in this respect. It is no use the President repeating that there is nothing to inquire into. Provisions have been made under the Royal Commission on Food Prices in 1925 for the necessary machinery for inquiry. Let me tell the House what it is that the Royal Commission have laid down. This is from their first report:
We have been informed that millers, through the agency of their local associations, discuss the price of flour, but that these associations are voluntary bodies, any one of the members of which can prevent a rise in price. The practice of the industry is stated to be the regulation of prices within fairly narrow limits in different areas which are based on the principal wheat ports. Conferences of millers fix schedules of prices for their areas subject to local considerations, deductions for larger buyers, or additions to meet additional rates of carriage. We are informed that the mode of procedure is to arrive at a hypothetical mixture of wheats which are available at the time, the price being based on that mixture and governed by such considerations as value, competition of imported flour, market conditions, and the price which the lowest important seller will accept. It is admitted, however, that were it not for the conferences there might be a miller who, if he were entirely free, would be disposed to cut his prices, but that he is persuaded not to do so. In view of the admitted existence of price-fixing associations in the milling industry, we consider that, as in the baking trade, the Food Council should continuously watch the operations of these associations, and intervene when investigations show that the interests of the consumer call for intervention.
All that I am asking for is that the President of the Board of Trade will reconsider his refusal, and will call for an inquiry with regard to the price of wheat offals to the fanner and the poultry-keeper, many of whom have been completely ruined by the effect of this price-raising association. It is no pleasure for me to stand here to-night and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept


what I have said in the spirit in which it is meant and that inquiry will be made into the cost of bread to the consumer.

11.21 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): This is not the first time the hon. Member has raised this or cognate subjects on the Motion for the Adjournment and I always find some difficulty in knowing to what I have to reply. I had the misfortune last week, as many hon. Members have had during the past few months, to suffer from influenza, and during influenza, as everybody knows, there is a sort of miasma. When I am dealing with this subject I always have a sort of influenza feeling, because I never quite know what is the object of the hon. Gentleman's criticism. I think that during the greater part of his well-read essay to-night he was dealing with the question of flour, but he ended by asking me to have an inquiry into the price of offals. Similarly, the question upon which he raised the subject was, as far as I could see, the position of the big combines in food storage.
The discussion to-night has developed into something quite different. On what ground does the hon. Gentleman base his continued hostility to these three big combines? It is all very well to talk, and no doubt to expect to excite a certain amount of popular sympathy, about millionaire directors, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Co-operative Wholesale Society is on exactly the same plane as Spillers and Ranks.

Mr. De la Bèe: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why the Co-operative Wholesale Society was brought in? Was it not brought in in rather peculiar circumstances?

Mr. Stanley: I do not know what the peculiar circumstances were, but the fact is that these are the three big combines, and they are charging more or less the same prices, which are determined to a large extent by the price of imported wheat and offals. I really think that to bring in the question of millionaire directors is merely prejudice. With regard to the question of the food storage, I have dealt with that before. I explained to the House at the time the reason why we operated our purchases through these three combines. I explained that they were prepared to do it for no commis-

sion at all and the advantage that that gave us both in the buying of the original stock and in turning it over. With regard to the question whether or not they gain an advantage from it, I would like to make these few observations. The hon. Gentleman says, that because they know what the Government are going to do, they gain a great advantage. I have explained before that the decision how and when to turn over the Government stocks is not taken independently by these three big combines. It has to be, first, on a report to my Department from the inspectors who go round to see the state of the wheat. The decision is taken on the advice of a committee, the chairman of which is a small independent miller who is there to see that the position of the small independent millers is not prejudiced. It is on the advice and instructions of that committee that these combines act, in the turning over of these stocks. Therefore there is no possibility of their turning this knowledge to their advantage. On the other hand there are considerable disadvantages, because they are under an obligation to take out of the Government store whatever wheat we decide has got to be turned over, whether or not it inconveniences them to have to mill it, whereas the independent miller is able at the moment of making his purchase to choose the particular kind of wheat which suits him best.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have no millers who can steer an independent course? If they want to go on they must take notice of the request, I put it that way, from the Millers Mutual. The whole thing is linked up.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to influenza. He will know that when you have this influenza mental miasma you come out of it very sane sometimes. I want him to give some exhibition of the sanity which has come to him. If an inquiry cannot be held—and I am not suggesting that an inquiry is necessary—it seems to me that there is, within the Board of Trade, the knowledge that offals which before the War were sold, mostly to poultry raisers, at 60 per cent. of the price of flour, are now 150 per cent. of the price of flour. A simple act by the Board of Trade, in insisting that all wheat shall come into this country in grain and be


milled in this country, would reduce the price of offals to the consumer, and thus help a large section of our people.

Mr. Stanley: That brings me from the point I was dealing with to the other one which has been raised. There is no necessity for me to order an inquiry into the price of flour. The Food Council are charged with the duty of keeping watch upon it, and at any time, on their own initiative, they can inquire into it, but I understand that no complaints have reached them regarding the price of flour. Do not let us forget that although we have got on to offals the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Evesham was concerned with flour and the hardship to the consumer. The hon. Gentleman opposite is quite right. That is really what we are thinking of, the question of offals. The hon. Gentleman really based his whole case on the fact that for the moment the price of wheat offals is greater than the price of wheat. That, as a matter of fact, is not a unique phenomenon. I have looked up the last few years, and I see that that has happened about four times in the last seven or eight years. It happens, and is liable to happen, when the price of wheat is exceptionally low. When the price of wheat is exceptionally low, the cost of the processing involved

in the offals has, of course, a more exaggerated effect on the price. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite is, of course, the complete banning of all imported flour. I am glad to see the independence of his mind, because I do not think his proposal would commend itself to the rest of his party. I cannot deal with it at length to-night. It is a subject with which I dealt at some considerable length when it was last raised on the Adjournment. I pointed out the fact that this imported flour came largely from the Dominions, and partly from America, and that this banning would involve the Ottawa Treaties with Australia and with Canada, and the Anglo-America Treaty. Having done that, you would remove from the consumers of flour the best safeguard that they have against the monopolistic tendencies either of co-operative societies or of the other two combines, which is the fact that imported flour sets a limit on what they can charge for the home-grown flour. Therefore it acts as an automatic check on the profiteering which the hon. Gentleman sees in all their processes.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven of the Clock.